Remove an audience

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar for added context is higher, and the description clears it. It discloses the real-world blast radius (ad groups targeting the audience lose that targeting), states the operation is irreversible, and specifies the exact confirmation token required, plus the human-consent gate.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states the action, the second front-loads consequences and then the confirmation requirement. No filler or restatement of the title.

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, irreversible mutation with an output schema that covers return values, the description supplies impact, reversibility, and the confirmation protocol, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only gap is the role of the optional ad_account_id context parameter.

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 carry the parameter burden, and it does for the one genuinely non-obvious parameter: confirm must equal the literal "DELETE". The audience_id and optional ad_account_id are not elaborated, but their meaning is largely evident from their names.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Remove an audience"), which is unambiguous against siblings like pinterest_ads_get_audience, pinterest_ads_update_audience and pinterest_ads_list_audiences. It stops short of distinguishing removal from archival semantics, which is the only nearby ambiguity, so it lands just under full marks.

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?

It gives a clear usage precondition: the call requires confirm="DELETE" and only after the user has agreed, which tells an agent the surrounding workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with update_audience or archive-style alternatives, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule set.

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