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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds the crucial non-obvious consequence that contacts are destroyed too, plus the auth tier needed. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot express.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the cascade warning, then prerequisites and endpoint. The `operationId`/`Audiences` provenance tag is extra detail but costs little.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, cascade side effect, and auth requirement—enough to call it safely. Only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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?

There is one required `id` parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only implies its meaning via the `DELETE /audiences/{id}` path template. It doesn't state the expected UUID format or what an invalid id yields.

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 and resource ('Delete an audience') and immediately names the cascading effect. The resource name itself distinguishes it from delete_contact/delete_domain and other delete siblings, though no explicit sibling comparison is made.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('Requires a `full_access` API key') and the underlying endpoint, which tells an agent when the call will succeed. It does not, however, state when to prefer an alternative such as removing contacts individually.

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