Удалить пиксель

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

The description adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying the successful response format and disclosing the existence of an undelete API method via raw_request. This provides useful behavioral context about reversibility and recovery options.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding only essential behavioral details. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action and providing success/recovery 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?

For a simple delete tool with one well-documented parameter and clear annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it deletes, the success response, and the recovery path. No output schema exists, but the description adequately addresses return behavior.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter, pixel_id, including its source ('id из list_pixels') and constraint (exclusiveMinimum: 0). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: 'Удаляет указанный пиксель Яндекс Аудиторий' (Deletes the specified Yandex Audiences pixel). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_pixel and create_pixel.

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 implies usage from the verb 'delete' and mentions the recovery method via raw_request, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude any scenarios, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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