remove_campaign_draft

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

The description says the tool 'deletes the shadow copy,' which contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false. Deleting a draft is a destructive operation on that draft resource, so the description and annotation are in direct conflict.

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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the following sentence adds important scoping and side-effect information efficiently.

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?

The description conveys the core behavior well and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the parameter semantics are undocumented and the contradiction with destructiveHint leaves the safety profile ambiguous for the agent.

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 0% and the description provides no guidance on customer_id or draft_resource_name beyond their self-explanatory names. It does not explain the expected format, where the draft resource name comes from, or relationships between the parameters.

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 states a specific action, 'Discard a campaign draft,' and clarifies it deletes only the shadow copy while leaving the live campaign untouched. This clearly differentiates it from promote_campaign_draft and remove_campaign siblings.

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 makes the use case clear: use this when you want to discard a draft rather than promote it. It contrasts with the promotion path and reassures that the live campaign is unaffected, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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