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

Annotations say destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by naming every data class destroyed and stating 'This action is irreversible.' This is exactly the context agents need beyond the flag.

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 high-stakes warning is front-loaded, the cascade list is dense but purposeful, and all three sentences contribute distinct guidance (action, irreversibility, alternatives). No 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?

With one self-explanatory parameter and destructive annotations already present, the description covers operation scope, irreversibility, and both failure and alternative routes. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema's single campaignId parameter has no description, but the tool name and cascade language make its meaning clear. The fallback guidance to list_campaigns for valid IDs adds semantic value about the expected value domain.

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 the operation with a specific verb ('PERMANENTLY delete') and resource ('a campaign'), then enumerates the exact cascade scope. Clearly distinct from archive_campaign and other campaign tools.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use archive_campaign instead ('to preserve data') and how to recover from a bad campaignId via list_campaigns. This is textbook routing between siblings.

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