ghl_ad_fb_campaign_delete

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

The description conveys destructive behavior ('Delete') and provides endpoint version and OAuth scopes, which adds context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose consequences (e.g., irreversible, cascading deletions) or response behavior. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the burden is partially shared.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The first sentence repeats the title unnecessarily, but overall it is efficient and contains no filler. Could be slightly tighter by removing the redundant first line.

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 has no output schema and 2 required parameters (including a nested body object), the description provides endpoint and OAuth scopes but lacks information on response format, error handling, or whether deletion is immediate. A more complete description for a destructive action would include at least a brief note on return value or side effects.

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% (both parameters have descriptive examples and text). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for good schema coverage.

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 resource ('a Facebook campaign by ID'), and distinguishes from sibling delete tools (e.g., ad, adset) by specifying the resource type. The first line 'Delete campaign' is direct and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_ad_fb_campaign_pause or ghl_ad_fb_campaign_upsert. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for use, or when deletion is appropriate (e.g., irreversible action).

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