Delete Campaign

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description still earns credit for adding "Permanently" (irreversibility) and the send-state eligibility rule, which annotations do not convey. It does not say what happens to associated analytics/results on deletion or what error surfaces when the precondition fails, so it stays at a solid 3 rather than higher.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the action, then the eligibility constraint. No redundant restatement of the name or title, and the primary behavior is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, permanence, and eligibility. The only meaningful gap is side-effect scope — whether deletion removes campaign analytics or results — which an agent might reasonably need before invoking a destructive call.

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 100% for the single parameter ("Numeric id.", positive integer), so the schema carries the parameter documentation. "by id" in the description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Permanently deletes a campaign by id" gives a specific verb (deletes) and resource (campaign), plus an idempotency-relevant qualifier (permanently). No sibling tool performs campaign deletion, so there is nothing to disambiguate against, but the description also does not explicitly contrast with listmonk_update_campaign_status, which is the alternative path for a live campaign.

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 second sentence supplies a concrete precondition: only campaigns that have not started sending can be deleted. That is a real when-not rule an agent can act on. It falls short of a 5 because it names no alternative action for the rejected case (e.g., archiving or updating status instead).

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