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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it removes the DB row and conditionally deletes the R2 object only if no other rows reference it. That conditional cascade logic is not derivable from annotations or schema. It stops short of stating irreversibility or permission requirements, hence not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the cascade behavior, then the required-param note and a concrete example. Zero filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 single-object delete with no output schema, the description covers what it removes and the conditional R2 cleanup, which is the most important context. However it omits irreversibility, permission/tenant-auth requirements, and leaves connection_context undescribed, leaving gaps for a destructive tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents creative_id as a UUID string and marks it REQUIRED, which is helpful, but the second parameter (connection_context, with a strict pattern) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation only.

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 (delete) and resource (a single creative) scoped to the authenticated tenant by creative_id. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like creatives_delete_folder or creatives_abandon_upload.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'delete' and the required creative_id, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., creatives_abandon_upload for in-progress uploads, or creatives_delete_folder for folders). No exclusions stated.

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