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. It does disclose that the deletion includes memberships and leaves contacts untouched, which is useful. However, it does not mention permanence, required permissions, or any side effects beyond the audience itself, so transparency is partial.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the clarifying note about contacts follows immediately. It is highly efficient and well-structured.

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 delete operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is deleted and what is not. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but those are minor for this tool's simplicity.

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%, so both parameters (audience_id and organization_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('an audience'), and the scope ('and its memberships'), while explicitly noting that contacts are untouched. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, and member_remove, and the 'contacts untouched' note clarifies it does not delete the underlying contacts.

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 implies when to use it (to delete an audience) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It could have clarified that individual member removal should use member_remove instead, but the core usage is inferred from the clear action statement.

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