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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: deletion is permanent for DRAFT creatives and only 'marked for deletion' otherwise, plus a preview mode. This is exactly the kind of nuance an agent needs before invoking an irreversible operation; only auth/rate-limit context is missing.

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 compact clauses with zero filler; the destructive/permanence condition and the preview switch are both front-loaded. Every phrase carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's severity, soft-vs-hard delete distinction, and preview toggle. It omits dependency/permission context and does not explicitly state that confirm=true is required to execute the deletion.

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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantically non-obvious 'confirm' flag (false = preview) but says nothing about account_id or creative_id beyond self-evident naming, leaving the coverage gap partly unaddressed.

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 ('Deletes a creative (ad)') and immediately distinguishes the tool from generic deletes by explaining the DRAFT-vs-published behavior. It does not name sibling alternatives such as update_linkedin_creative_status, but the action is unambiguous.

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 'confirm=false = preview' clause gives real usage guidance about a safe dry-run mode, which is the main when-to-use signal. However, it never says when to prefer this over update_linkedin_creative_status (e.g., pausing) or what prerequisites exist, so routing guidance is only implied.

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