kadam_adv_delete_campaigns

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and a title; the description goes well beyond by specifying cascade deletion of creatives, the archived-state precondition, call-level rejection semantics, and non-idempotent retry behavior. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a permanent mutation.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (action, cascade, confirmation gate, precondition, retry behavior), with the destructive verb front-loaded. No filler.

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 permanent-mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the irreversible consequences, the gating precondition with the sibling tool to call first, and failure modes. Nothing material is left for the agent to infer.

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 coverage is only 50% (ids documented, confirm has a const with no prose). The description compensates by explaining that confirm must be true as a deliberate safety gate, though it never restates that ids is a comma-separated list, so the format meaning still lives only in the schema.

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 (permanently delete) and resource (campaigns), and discloses the cascade to their creatives. This cleanly separates it from sibling tools like set_campaign_status, delete_creatives, and move_campaigns.

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 prerequisite path ('a campaign must be archived first (use set_campaign_status with status=archived)'), names the required confirm flag, and warns against retrying. It gives both when-to-use and when-the-call-will-fail.

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