Удалить списки ретаргетинга

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is destructive. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: deletion is irreversible, and per-item failures are returned in the response list rather than as a tool error. This partial-failure semantics is genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence covering both the operation and partial-failure behavior. Front-loaded with the action. No wasted words, though could be slightly clearer with punctuation.

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 annotations cover the destructive safety profile and no output schema exists, the description adequately covers core behavior including partial-failure semantics. However, it does not state what permissions are needed or exactly how the failure list is structured in the response, leaving some gaps for a destructive mutation with no output schema.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter (array of retargeting condition IDs, min 1, max 1000). The description mentions deletion by ID but adds no extra syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (удалить) and resource (условия ретаргетинга и подбора аудитории), and specifies deletion is by ID. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_retargeting_list, update_retargeting_lists, list_retargeting_lists.

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?

Implies deletion semantics and irreversibility, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus update_retargeting_lists or how to discover IDs. The ID source is noted in the schema (list_retargeting_lists), not the description. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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