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

The description merely restates the action and gives no additional behavioral context such as irreversibility, side effects on related entities, or permission requirements. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds nothing beyond them.

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 a single, focused sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema handles parameter details. An agent can safely invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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?

The schema provides full coverage (100%) for the single required parameter, including its description 'The audience ID to delete'. The tool description does not add extra meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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) and the target resource (audience), and specifies the identifier (ID). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_list or delete_brand because it names 'audience' 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?

There is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the intent is obvious from the name and description. The lack of any exclusion or alternative hint is acceptable for a straightforward delete operation, though a sentence about not using it for soft-deletion or restoring would be better.

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