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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is signaled structurally; the description adds genuinely new behavior: an explicit user-yes requirement, a dry-run/preview mode, and an exact-name guard. It does not disclose the blast radius (whether deleting a campaign also removes its ad groups and ads) or any irreversibility/auth detail.

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, no filler, and the destructive action plus the required confirmation protocol are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by conveying a constraint the agent must honor.

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 destructive, open-world tool with no output schema, the critical missing piece — the confirmation workflow — is covered well. What remains unstated is the preview's return content and whether deletion cascades to child entities, which an agent would want before calling.

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 only 43%, so the description carries weight here. It meaningfully explains `confirm` (gate for execution) and `confirm_name` (must equal the exact name), but leaves `id_or_name`, `level` interplay, `folder`, `account`, and `language` entirely to the schema.

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 (Delete) and enumerates the exact resource levels it accepts (campaign, ad group or ad), matching the `level` enum. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as tiktok_set_status or tiktok_rename, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

It specifies a concrete two-step calling protocol: first call without confirm to preview, then call with confirm=true plus an exact-name confirmation. That is real when-to-use guidance for the invoke sequence. The gap is that it never says when NOT to use this tool (e.g. pausing via tiktok_set_status instead of deleting).

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