manage_audience

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: emails are hashed client-side, phones require E.164 format, and actions like 'create' and 'upload' are mutations. No contradiction exists.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and lists actions clearly. It is slightly dense but remains concise with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers all actions, required parameters, and key behavioral details. However, it lacks explicit information about the return values for 'list' and 'status' actions, which is a minor gap given no output schema.

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 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining parameter usage (e.g., E.164 for phones, B2B context for company_domains, default membership_lifespan of 540 days). This enhances the agent's understanding.

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 manages first-party audiences via the Data Manager API, specifying supported membership types and actions (create, upload, list, status, list-sources). It uses a specific verb ('manage') and resource ('audience'), fully distinguishing the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear usage for each action (e.g., 'create' for new audience, 'upload' to append), but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or direct to sibling alternatives like sync_audience. This is a minor gap.

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