Delete a campaign

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds three things annotations cannot: the deletion is irreversible ('Permanent'), it does not cascade to already-placed calls, and it requires the 'campaigns' scope — an auth requirement that is genuinely useful context.

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?

Three terse sentences, zero filler, and the most consequential fact ('Permanent') is front-loaded. Every clause carries distinct information: irreversibility, blast radius, and auth scope.

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 destructive one-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key behavioral facts: permanence, non-cascading scope to calls, and required scope. It omits edge cases such as what happens to associated leads or the error behavior on an invalid ID, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter (campaignId) is never mentioned or explained in the description. It is self-evident from its name, which keeps this from a 1, but the description does not compensate for the total absence of schema documentation as the rubric requires at low coverage.

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?

The name and title establish a specific verb+resource (delete a campaign), and the description reinforces it with 'Permanent,' establishing irreversibility. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like delete_agent or delete_webhook beyond the resource name.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the scope note, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., what to do instead if calls are pending). The word 'Permanent' hints at caution but the agent is left to infer the decision context.

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