creatives_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key failure condition (fails if active ads reference it), which is valuable. However, it omits other significant behaviors such as the effect of the 'confirm' parameter, whether deletion is permanent, or any required permissions. This is a clear gap.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning—'Delete an ad creative' is direct, and the second sentence adds a critical constraint. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is the only source of context. It covers the primary purpose and one failure condition, but fails to explain the 'confirm' parameter, return values, error behavior, or any prerequisites. This is inadequate for a tool with two parameters and no other documentation.

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 compensate for missing parameter meaning. It does not explain the 'creative_id' parameter (though implied) nor the 'confirm' parameter, which has a default of false and an unclear purpose. The description adds no information beyond the schema itself.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('ad creative'), which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like creatives_get and creatives_list. It also exactly matches the tool name, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context by noting that deletion will fail if any active ads still reference the creative, implying a prerequisite for usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., ads_delete_ad) or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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