delete_affiliate_campaign

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 and does so thoroughly. It explicitly states that deletion is permanent and irreversible, that affiliate links/codes become invalid, that new orders cannot be tracked, and that commission records/history are unaffected (with an implementation caveat). This goes beyond minimal disclosure and fully informs the agent of consequences.

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 well-structured with clear sections ([WRITE], purpose, API, return structure, side effects). Every sentence provides necessary information for a destructive operation—purpose, API endpoint, return format, and side effects—without redundancy or padding.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description fully contextualizes the operation: it specifies the exact API call, the return structure, and the irreversible side effects. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including understanding downstream impacts.

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 describes the only parameter (campaign_id) with its meaning ('聯盟行銷活動 ID'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that the campaign is specified, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('affiliate marketing campaign'), and explicitly says '永久刪除指定的聯盟行銷活動' (permanently delete the specified affiliate campaign). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create/update/list/get by focusing on deletion.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: '用於清除已結束、取消或錯誤建立的活動' (for clearing ended, cancelled, or mistakenly created campaigns). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use update to pause instead of delete), 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.