direct_audience_targets_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a write operation and that allow_write must be true, but it does not explain the destructiveness of 'delete', reversibility of 'suspend'/'resume', or return behavior. The dry_run safety mechanism is only in the schema, not highlighted in the description.

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, tightly packed sentence. It front-loads 'WRITE' and immediately follows with the key actions and target. No wasted words; every token contributes to understanding core purpose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-complete. It omits expected return behavior, error semantics, and the purpose of dry_run. The presence of safety params in the schema is not echoed in the description, leaving the agent without enough behavioral context.

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 only 40%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies that 'ids' are the target and lists valid actions, which helps for the required params. However, it does not explain the 'dry_run' parameter (undocumented in schema) or the 'project' restriction beyond what schema already says. Value added is limited to the two core parameters.

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 operation type ('WRITE') and the specific resource ('audiencetargets') with three explicit actions ('suspend|resume|delete') and the targeting mechanism ('by ids'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like direct_list_audience_targets or direct_add_audience_targets.

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 'WRITE' prefix signals a mutation tool, and the action list implies when to use it (changing state of existing audience targets). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is clear but implicit.

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