kadam_adv_delete_creatives

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by stating the operation is permanent, that confirm=true is mandatory, that the entire call is rejected (atomic, not partial) if archiving wasn't done, and that deleted creatives become unaddressable. These are exactly the failure modes an agent needs before committing to a destructive call.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and hard requirement, then prerequisites, then the retry edge case. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct operational fact.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, the mandatory flag, the ordering prerequisite, and the rejection conditions. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 50%: 'ids' is documented in-schema as comma-separated IDs, but 'confirm' has only a const constraint and no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that confirm=true is required and that omitting it fails the call. It adds real meaning for the undocumented parameter, though it says nothing about format limits or ID count for 'ids'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete creatives') and immediately pins down scope via the confirm and archive prerequisites. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like set_creative_status, update_creative, or delete_campaigns without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions and the alternative workflow: the creative must be archived first, and it names the sibling (set_creative_status with status=archived) that accomplishes that. It also states that retries against already-deleted creatives are rejected, closing a failure path an agent would otherwise hit.

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