Delete user data (ad account)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-vs-read profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by naming the required OAuth scope, which is not in the annotations or schema. However, it omits the most important behavior of a job-creating tool: that it is asynchronous, returns a job handle, and that the deletion is not immediate — relevant given the tension between the word "deletion" and destructiveHint=false.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope requirement is placed inline where it is read. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but on this dimension the economy is a strength rather than padding.

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 write tool with a nested-object schema, no output schema, and 50% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without essential context: whether the operation is async, how to verify completion, whether the request is idempotent, or what identifiers are accepted. Annotations carry only the basic safety profile, so the description's burden was higher than it delivers.

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 description coverage is only 50%: the leaf "value" field and "ad_account_id" are documented, but the required "data"/"identifiers" wrapper and the 200-identifier cap are covered only by structural constraints. The description adds no parameter information at all — it never mentions identifiers, the five supported identifier types, hashing requirements, or the batch limit — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair ("Request deletion of a person's data from an ad account"), which is more precise than the title's generic "Delete user data". It implicitly separates itself from the sibling reddit_ads_create_pixel_data_deletion_job by scoping to an ad account, but never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 only usage-relevant guidance is the parenthetical scope requirement ("requires the adsdatadeletion scope"). There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the pixel data-deletion sibling, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the ad account must exist), and no hint that a companion tool like get_data_deletion_job exists to check the outcome.

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