ad_manager_fb_delete_ad_account

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as reversibility, cascading effects on campaigns, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict the annotations, but it fails to provide any value beyond them.

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—three words—but it is under-specified. While it avoids waste, it does not structure information (e.g., what gets deleted or side effects). It is not verbose, but it fails to add value beyond the tool name.

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 action with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention consequences (e.g., permanent deletion, impact on associated campaigns), success/error behavior, or any prerequisites. The annotations cover safety, but an agent would benefit from knowing what happens when the account is deleted, which is missing.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description 'Delete ad account' adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states (adAccountId as an identifier, locationId with a default). Since schema fully documents the parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete ad account' clearly states the verb and resource. The tool name includes 'fb' to distinguish from Google and LinkedIn variants, though the description itself doesn't mention the platform. It's specific enough for an agent to infer its function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete-ad-account tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that favor this tool over ad_manager_google_delete_ad_account or ad_manager_li_delete_ad_account. Without such context, an agent may struggle to select it appropriately.

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