vast42_delete_creative

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Delete') without revealing whether the deletion is permanent, if there are side effects on associated entities, or if special permissions are required. This lack of transparency is significant for a destructive operation.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention whether the action is reversible, what happens to creative references, or any prerequisites. The simple schema and single parameter are fully documented, but the behavioral context is missing, making it less than fully complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including a clear description ('VAST 4.2 creative ID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, the baseline score 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') and the resource ('VAST 4.2 creative'), making the core action unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling delete tools like 'delete_creative' or other vast42_delete_* tools, but the resource specification provides sufficient context.

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 such as updating, archiving, or using the generic 'delete_creative' tool. The description only implies the use case through the verb 'Delete' without any contextual or exclusionary details.

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