audience.segments.delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. '(pro-only)' discloses a plan/permission constraint, which is genuine added value. But for a destructive mutation it says nothing about irreversibility, cascading effects on campaigns or lookalikes built on the segment, or success/failure semantics.

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?

One short sentence that is front-loaded and waste-free, but the 'Audience:' namespace prefix is redundant given the tool name, and the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than economical writing.

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?

A destructive, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with an undocumented required parameter needs considerably more description than this. An agent has enough to attempt the call but not enough to know the consequences or when it should avoid it.

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?

One required parameter (segment_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning about its format, where to obtain it, or behavior on invalid IDs. The description does nothing to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 (segment), and the 'Audience:' prefix identifies the namespace, so an agent can tell what it does. However it does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like audience.segments.update or audience.segments.create beyond the obvious verb, and no scope or effect is described.

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 only usage signal is '(pro-only)', which is a useful access prerequisite but not a when-to-use criterion. There is no guidance on when deletion is appropriate versus updating or listing, and no warning about irreversibility.

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