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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping detail that it deletes a single 'owned' creative. It omits whether deletion is reversible, whether ads referencing the creative are affected, and whether confirmation is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slightly underspecified rather than verbose, but structurally efficient.

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 not be explained. However, for a destructive single-parameter mutation with zero schema coverage, the description should at minimum clarify the identifier format and the consequences of deletion; those gaps keep it at minimum viable.

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 coverage is 0%: the single selection_key parameter has no description, and the description only echoes the name while introducing an undefined alternative ('or creative reference') that does not exist in the schema. It neither explains the accepted format of selection_key nor resolves which identifier to supply.

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 one owned creative'), with scope qualifiers ('one', 'owned') that distinguish it from the sibling read tools creatives_get and creatives_list_batch. It doesn't name an explicit alternative, but 'delete' is unambiguous against the surrounding creatives_* family.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of related operations such as creatives_abandon_upload or the confirm/deny approval siblings that govern other mutations. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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