Delete a VWO campaign variation

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

The description discloses the destructive nature ('Permanently delete', 'cannot be undone') and the real-world impact ('Variations are what live visitors actually see... changes take effect on real traffic'), adding value beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 three short, focused sentences. Every sentence provides essential information: action, permanence, real-world impact, and a usage guideline. No superfluous content.

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 is a delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, its irreversible nature, its effect on live traffic, and the need for user confirmation. It could mention how to retrieve variation IDs, but the schema's parameter descriptions already point to the relevant list tool.

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%, and each parameter already has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 states the action: 'Permanently delete a variation from a VWO campaign.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'variation' are explicit, and the tool is distinct from other variation tools (e.g., update, new) among 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 provides a key guideline: 'Confirm the specific variation with the user before calling.' This indicates when to use the tool and emphasizes caution. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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