campaigns_delete_onboarding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but does not mention side effects, prerequisites, reversibility, or what happens to the instance. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation, especially since the output schema is not described.

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 a single, efficient sentence with the action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete. It lacks important lifecycle context (e.g., whether onboarding must be in a specific state before deletion, or whether it is safe to call again). The parenthetical gives a hint but not enough for a full understanding of the operation's context.

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?

The schema has one parameter (connect_instance_id) with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining the parameter's role, but it fails to do so. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value.

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 clearly specifies the action ('Delete instance onboarding job') and the rationale ('to retry onboarding'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like campaigns_delete (which deletes a campaign) and campaigns_start_onboarding, making the purpose 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 parenthetical '(to retry onboarding)' provides a clear context for when to use this tool, implying it should be used before restarting onboarding after a failure. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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