Permanently delete a job-hunting campaign folder and its contents. Use when a campaign is no longer needed, since the removal cannot be undone.
Permanently remove a campaign folder — destructive, cannot be undone
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Skip confirmation prompt | |
| campaign | Yes | Campaign name (e.g. "default") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: the operation is destructive and irreversible. However, it says nothing about the confirmation prompt behavior (relevant given the 'confirm' parameter), required permissions, or whether nested contents are also deleted.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the destructive warning is placed prominently after the action. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical warning but omits confirmation-flow behavior and the scope of deletion (folder vs. contained data). Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want resolved.
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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only that the target is a 'folder' and does not clarify the confirm-skip semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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 remove a campaign folder'), which is enough to distinguish it from read_campaign_config, get_campaign, and list_campaigns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with rename_campaign or remove_application, but the destructive remove action is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus siblings such as remove_application or rename_campaign, and no stated prerequisites or preconditions. The agent must infer that it is the campaign-deletion counterpart of the other campaign tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.