cm_delete_campaign

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

Annotations already signal destructiveness (destructiveHint=true). The description adds the word 'Permanently' and a warning emoji, reinforcing irreversibility and specifying deletable states. It does not disclose additional side effects like cascading deletions or recovery options.

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 description is one short sentence with an emoji for emphasis. It is front-loaded with the warning, concise, and contains no unnecessary 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 simple deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It could mention what the return value is (e.g., success/error), but this is not critical given the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

The single parameter campaignId is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any extra context about the parameter, so it adds no value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action (delete), the resource (campaign), and specifies the states (draft, scheduled, sent). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cm_unschedule_campaign, which only unschedules without deleting.

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?

The description implies usage for permanent removal of campaigns but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives exist (e.g., unscheduling or archiving). The presence of many sibling tools would benefit from such direction.

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