Delete a draft email campaign. Sent campaigns cannot be deleted but can be archived.
Delete a draft campaign. Sent campaigns cannot be deleted (only archived).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var) | |
| campaignId | Yes | Campaign ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool deletes draft campaigns and that sent campaigns cannot be deleted, but it does not mention permissions, irreversibility, or side effects, leaving a significant gap in transparency.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a critical constraint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality and a key constraint. However, without annotations, it lacks details on irreversibility and permissions, which would enhance completeness.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (apiKey and campaignId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline standard.
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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'draft campaign', immediately conveying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying that only draft campaigns are deleted, and notes that sent campaigns are not handled here.
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 clear usage context: this tool is for deleting draft campaigns only. It explicitly states a when-not condition ('Sent campaigns cannot be deleted'), but does not specify an alternative tool for archiving sent campaigns, which prevents a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.