Delete an audience (204)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the two-phase preview/execute model and the absence of a server-side dry run, which materially changes how an agent must call it. It stops short of saying what is destroyed alongside the audience (members, campaign references).

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the safety constraint. Minor waste in repeating the title verbatim ("Delete an audience (204)") and in the doubled parentheses, but no sentence is superfluous.

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 three-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the definition covers the endpoint, the required confirm flag, the preview fallback and the 204 result. Only the blast radius of the deletion is unstated, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 67% and both confirm and idempotencyKey are documented in the schema, so the schema carries most of the weight. The description restates the confirm contract but adds nothing about the id parameter or when to supply an idempotencyKey. Baseline 3 for a largely self-documenting schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete an audience") plus the underlying HTTP endpoint (DELETE /v1/audiences/{id}) and success status (204). That is enough to distinguish it from nearby siblings such as audiences_removeMembers or audiences_list without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly explains the execution gate: nothing is executed unless confirm: true, and there is no server-side dry run, so the only preview path is the client-side one. It does not spell out when to prefer this over e.g. trimming members, but for a destructive delete the invocation condition is the useful guidance and it is present.

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