delete_creative

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Delete an image creative.' It does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, whether it affects associated campaigns or files, whether special permissions are required, or any other consequences. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency 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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or irrelevant details. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it an efficient and well-structured statement.

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?

This is a very simple tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema. The description is adequate for identifying the operation, but it omits any mention of side effects, irreversibility, or dependencies. For a delete action, this absence of safety-related info makes it minimally complete rather than comprehensive.

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 already fully describes the single parameter 'id' with the description 'Creative ID' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the resource type, so it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.

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') and identifies the exact resource type ('image creative'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_video_creative, delete_rich_media_creative, and delete_audio_creative. It leaves no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 word 'image' implies this tool is for deleting image creatives only, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention the other creative-type deletion tools. Usage context is implied rather than stated, so it gets a 3.

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