delete_zone_ortb_native_ad

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. It states 'Delete' but offers no information about permanence, cascading effects, required permissions, or success/failure behavior. For a destructive operation, this is a meaningful 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, direct sentence that front-loads the verb and scope with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation.

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 simple delete operation with two well-described parameters, the description is adequate. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention the result of deletion or any prerequisites. The lack of safety context (irreversibility, side effects) makes it incomplete for a destructive tool.

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% with both id and zone_id already described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Delete), resource (ORTB native ad), and scope (from a standard zone). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_ortb_native_image_asset or delete_ortb_native_title_asset, which delete other asset types.

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?

Usage is implied by the action and scope, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over update_zone_ortb_native_ad or when deletion is appropriate. No alternatives or exclusionary conditions are mentioned.

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