Bulk delete campaigns

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description earns credit for genuinely new behavioral facts: the operation is atomic, is restricted to draft campaigns only, requires Plunk v0.12+, and prompts for confirmation before running. The confirmation and version gates are not expressible in the annotation set. It stops short of describing partial-failure or error behavior for a large batch.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The bolded label structure is scannable and front-loads purpose and exclusions before caveats. The 'Returns: The outcome of the batch' line is near-tautological filler, but every other line carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter destructive bulk operation with no output schema and rich annotations, the definition supplies the restriction, atomicity, version gate, and confirmation behavior an agent needs before invoking. The only real gap is not indicating what a batch result contains on partial failure, which matters when up to 1000 IDs are submitted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, with the UUID format, maxItems 1000, and draft-only constraint already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, ordering, or error-handling detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with exact scope: 'Permanently delete up to 1000 draft campaigns in one atomic call.' The atomicity and draft-only qualifiers make it distinguishable from every other campaign sibling at a glance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the two nearest alternatives — plunk_delete_campaign for a single campaign and plunk_cancel_campaign for stopping a send — and the 'Use when: Clearing out accumulated drafts' line states the positive trigger. Both the when and the when-not are covered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.