delete_audience

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals a critical side effect: deleting an audience also deletes its contacts. However, it doesn't mention irreversibility, authorization needs, or rate limits, which would provide fuller 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 a single, efficient sentence: the verb and object are front-loaded, and the HTTP endpoint is appended as supplemental context. No filler or redundant explanation exists.

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 single-parameter delete operation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the key behavioral nuance (cascading contact deletion). It could mention that the deletion is permanent, but the combination of the DELETE method and the explicit side effect is sufficient for most agent use cases.

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%, and the only parameter 'id' is already described as 'The audience id.' The description adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameter, so the baseline 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 action ('Delete') and resource ('an audience'), with an important clarification that contacts are also deleted. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_audience and delete_contact by naming the audience as the target and noting the cascade effect. The HTTP endpoint further reinforces the specific operation.

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 when to use the tool—whenever you need to delete an audience—but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like delete_segment or delete_contact. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling deletion tools.

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