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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely new context: that stored media files are also destroyed, that an Indie or Agency plan (trial included) is required, and that the caller needs an authorized account or an API key with write scope. It stops short of stating reversibility or cascade effects on linked references.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing, with the "WRITE tool" marker and the destructive scope front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite details. No redundant or filler language.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is destroyed and what access is required, which is what an agent needs before calling. It omits whether the removal can be undone or what the response confirms, leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single item_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description need not restate it. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or sourcing, which is correct at baseline for one well-documented parameter.

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 a specific verb ("delete") and resource ("a saved ad and its stored media files from the vault"), which separates it from sonar_ad_spy_vault_save and sonar_ad_spy_vault_update. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the delete verb and the plan/auth prerequisites, but there is no explicit guidance on when to remove versus update or hide an ad, and no named alternative tool. It gives prerequisites rather than selection criteria.

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