Delete entity

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, which only say destructiveHint=true. It discloses that the deletion is soft, that children cascade with the parent, that it cannot be undone here, and that the underlying post is preserved. These are critical behavioral details an agent needs before invoking a destructive action.

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 five short, purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds cascade, irreversibility, post-preservation, and confirmation semantics. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what is deleted, what happens to children, whether it can be undone, what is preserved, and when confirm=true is required. The required parameters are in the schema, so an agent has enough context to invoke this correctly.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the critical confirm parameter's semantics and precondition. It also names the allowed entity types, reinforcing the entity enum. The entity_id parameter is not explained beyond its name, but it is fairly self-evident given the entity types.

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 states a specific verb ('SOFT-delete') and a precise resource scope ('CAMPAIGN, LINE_ITEM, or PROMOTED_TWEET'), which clearly differentiates this from sibling delete tools for audiences, pixels, and DNR lists. It also clarifies what deletion does not do ('Deleting an ad does not delete the post'), removing ambiguity about its scope.

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 gives a clear operational rule: 'confirm=true after the user named the exact entity. Never inferred.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to pass confirm=true. It does not explicitly name alternative delete tools, but the entity scope in the description and sibling names make the intended use context clear.

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