campaigns_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Delete a campaign' without noting whether the action is permanent, reversible, affects related resources, or requires special permissions. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the action. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but that is already penalized in other dimensions. As a concise statement, it earns its place.

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 delete operation with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention side effects, irreversibility, or any other contextual information that would help an agent decide or proceed. The output schema's existence does not compensate for the lack of safety or side-effect disclosure.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning for campaign_id. The single parameter is left completely unexplained; the description does not specify what the ID refers to, how to obtain it, or any format expectations. The parameter semantics rely entirely on the schema's name and type, which is insufficient.

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 'Delete a campaign' clearly states the tool's verb (delete) and resource (campaign), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like campaigns_create, campaigns_list, and campaigns_stop. It is specific and 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to delete a campaign versus pausing or stopping one, nor any prerequisites or consequences that might trigger a choice. There is no mention of context or exclusions.

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