Remove resource

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that removal is permanent, that it is a soft-delete in reporting terms, and that removed entities remain visible with status REMOVED. This is valuable behavioral context that the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations do not fully convey.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The core action and resource types are front-loaded, and the permanence caveat is placed second for emphasis. The example resource name is compact and useful.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description is mostly complete: it states the resource types, the input format, and the post-removal behavior. It could mention what happens on success or whether an error is returned for invalid resource names, but the core invocation context is sufficiently covered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a concrete example of a resource_name and clarifies that the resource name is the addressing mechanism, but it does not add substantive semantics beyond the schema.

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 action (remove/soft-delete) and names the exact resource types it applies to: keyword, negative keyword, ad, ad group, or campaign. It also clarifies the addressing mechanism via resource name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_ad_status or update_keyword.

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 implies when to use the tool by listing the resource types and requiring a full resource name 'as returned by other tools.' However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as mutate or set_ad_status, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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