Cut underperforming zones

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

The description discloses the destructive nature (blacklist modification), the dry-run default, the AND logic for thresholds, and the significance guard (min_clicks). Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds context on how the destruction works (adding to blacklist) and the evaluation window. No contradictions.

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 concise: four sentences that front-load the purpose and key behaviors (dry-run, confirm, threshold logic). No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds essential information. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior well: evaluation window, threshold criteria, dry-run vs confirm, and the significance guard. It could mention what the response looks like (e.g., list of zones to be cut) or error cases (e.g., invalid campaign). Still, it provides enough context for most use cases.

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%, so parameters are already described. The description adds value by clarifying that 'spend' means media_cost, explaining the AND logic for multiple thresholds, and noting that range is ignored if from/to are given. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter interactions beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: blacklisting underperforming zones based on thresholds. The verb 'cut' and resource 'zones' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_zones, update_zone, or remove_targeting_rule by focusing on automated performance-based blacklisting with dry-run and confirm modes.

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 description explains when to use the tool (to cut underperforming zones), how to use it (dry-run first, then confirm), the logic of threshold matching (ALL conditions), and defines key terms like 'spend'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like manual editing via update_zone.

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