Delete campaign

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the collateral damage (view and click statistics are destroyed) and the server-side rejection condition for running campaigns. It stops short of saying the deletion is irreversible or how it errors.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the permanence warning and destruction scope front-loaded. Nothing repeats the title verbatim without adding 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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is destroyed, what side effects occur, and what causes failure. The only missing pieces are irreversibility/auth requirements and the error behavior.

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 single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description would ideally explain that 'id' is the campaign identifier. In practice the tool name plus the parameter name make this unambiguous, so the gap is minor but not nothing.

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 ('a campaign'), and adds the scope of what is removed ('and its view and click statistics'). This distinguishes it clearly from campaign_set_status and campaign_update, which also operate on 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?

It gives one concrete usage constraint — running campaigns cannot be deleted — which is genuinely useful for avoiding a failed call. However, it never names the alternative path (e.g., stop the campaign via campaign_set_status first) or states prerequisites such as permissions or confirmation requirements.

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