draft_delete_native_ad_item

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 only states the action without revealing whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to related data, or any prerequisites (e.g., item must be in draft state). For a delete operation, this lack of transparency is a significant risk for an agent.

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 concise single sentence with no redundant wording, effectively stating the core purpose. However, it is so terse that it omits useful behavioral or contextual details that could be added without significant bloat, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is minimal. It lacks critical behavioral details (permanence of deletion, draft-specific behavior, relationship to published items) that would be necessary for an agent to safely invoke this delete operation. The description is incomplete for a destructive action.

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 only parameter (id) with a description ('Draft ad item ID'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already sufficiently documents the meaning of the id field.

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 a precise resource ('draft native ad item'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_native_ad_item (which targets non-draft items) and other draft_* delete tools for different ad types. This is unambiguous and prevents confusion among similar operations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is specifically for draft (unpublished) items, nor does it reference the sibling delete_native_ad_item for finalized items. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name, which is insufficient for confident selection.

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