wb_advert_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The explicit 'irreversible' marker clearly communicates that this is a destructive action with no undo, which is the most important behavioral trait for a delete operation.

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 one short sentence and front-loads the action and consequence. The parenthetical Russian phrase is redundant with the English text but harmless; it does not add semantic value.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is deleted and that it is irreversible. It could be stronger by naming temporary alternatives, but nothing critical is missing for safe invocation.

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%, but the sole parameter 'advert_id' is self-explanatory and the description maps it to the ad campaign being deleted. No additional detail is given about where the ID comes from or how it is validated, but for a single integer parameter this is minimally adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a clear resource ('an ad campaign') and adds the key qualifier 'irreversible'. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like wb_advert_pause, wb_advert_stop, wb_advert_start, and wb_advert_rename without any ambiguity.

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 the tool should only be used for permanent deletion, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as pause or stop. The irreversibility warning provides context, but no exclusions or sibling references are given.

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