ad_manager_li_delete_ad_account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'delete.' It does not mention irreversibility, cascading effects, permission requirements, or any other nuance. Since it adds no value over the annotations and remains purely minimal, a score of 2 reflects the lack of additional transparency.

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 ('Delete ad account'), but it simply restates the tool name in a readable form. It adds no additional information that would justify its presence beyond the name. The sentence does not 'earn its place' because it offers no insights about usage, behavior, or parameters. It is not effectively structured for aiding agent decision-making.

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, idempotent operation, the description is underspecified. It lacks warning about permanence, the platform context (LinkedIn), and any mention of the optional locationId or its default. Annotations carry the destructive hint, but the description should convey more operational detail (e.g., that the ad account is permanently removed) to fully inform an agent. Given the simple scope and available schema, more context is expected.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema fully documents adAccountId and locationId. The description contributes no parameter-specific information (e.g., how adAccountId is used, defaulting behavior of locationId), but per the rubric the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high. No extra value is added beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (ad account). It is not a tautology since it conveys the operation explicitly. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also delete ad accounts (e.g., ad_manager_fb_delete_ad_account, ad_manager_google_delete_ad_account), though the platform is implied by the tool name prefix, so a 4 is appropriate.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention that this is specifically for LinkedIn ad accounts or that other platform-specific delete tools exist. No context about destructive implications or when to avoid use is given.

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