delete_custom_pixel

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete a custom pixel' without indicating whether deletion is permanent, whether there are cascading effects, or any required permissions. This minimal restatement offers no meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. While concise and well-structured, it could include a bit more context without affecting its brevity, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description must fully contextualize the operation. It fails to mention if deletion is irreversible, what happens to associated resources, or any error conditions. For a destructive mutation, this lacks sufficient context for an agent to use it confidently.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the required 'id' parameter with a clear description ('Custom Pixel ID to delete'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 operation ('Delete') and the resource ('custom pixel'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that get, create, update, or toggle custom pixels. It is specific and unambiguous, leaving no doubt about what the tool does.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_pixel or toggle_custom_pixel. The description only states the action, leaving usage context to be inferred from the name. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which deletion should be performed.

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