Delete Campaign

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

Annotations already mark the operation destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds the crucial warning 'This cannot be undone,' which is not in the structured metadata. It also reveals that deletion is actually an archival action, providing meaningful clarity about the underlying behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the core action and irreversibility before the argument block. The Args section is redundant with the input schema, but the overall length is appropriate for a one-parameter tool. There is no filler or irrelevant detail.

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 mutation tool, the description plus annotations and schema covers the essential facts: what is deleted, that it is archival, and that the operation is irreversible. It does not describe return values, permissions, or effects on child adsets and ads, but these are not necessary to invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is not a critical gap here.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage and already documents campaign_id as 'Campaign ID'; the description only restates it as 'Campaign ID to delete' without adding format, source, or likely-value guidance. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but provides no extra semantic value. The agent gains nothing beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Deletes (archives)') and resource ('a campaign'), and the irreversibility warning clarifies the operation's meaning. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools for ads, posts, and adsets by targeting the campaign resource. No ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 conveys that this is the destructive campaign-removal operation, which differentiates it from meta_get_campaign, meta_update_campaign, and other campaign tools by implication. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool rather than an alternative or mentions prerequisites such as pausing or listing campaigns first. The usage guidance is adequate but left to inference.

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