delete_flash_price_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses permanent deletion irreversibility, immediate price reversion for ongoing campaigns, and that historical orders are unaffected.

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 separate sections for purpose, API call, return structure, and side effects. It is front-loaded with the [WRITE] marker and every line provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It documents the API endpoint, return format, and all relevant side effects, giving the agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 single parameter campaign_id is already fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including a Chinese description. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond implying the targeted campaign.

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 — permanently deleting a designated flash price campaign — and clearly identifies the resource and scope. It also specifies use cases (cleaning up ended, cancelled, or erroneously created campaigns), distinguishing it from sibling delete/update operations.

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 gives explicit use cases ('用於清除已結束、取消或錯誤建立的活動') and notes the operation is permanent. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_flash_price_campaign for modifying an existing campaign, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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