Delete campaign

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so permanence is partly covered. The description adds non-obvious consequences beyond the annotations: that deleting a sent campaign discards performance history, and that cancellation preserves history instead. It stops short of auth/permission requirements.

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?

Bold-labeled sections are front-loaded (Purpose, Not for, Returns, Use when) with no filler sentences. Every line carries decision-relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return contract ('Confirmation of the deletion') and the destruction semantics. For a single-param delete tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('Campaign UUID'), so the schema fully carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id format, so the baseline 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 ('Permanently delete one campaign and its record') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling cancel tool. An agent can distinguish it from plunk_cancel_campaign and plunk_bulk_delete_campaigns without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit 'Not for' exclusion naming the alternative (plunk_cancel_campaign) and the condition that selects it, plus a positive 'Use when' case for unwanted drafts. This is the full when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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