meta_ads_audiences_delete

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

With no annotations to cover safety, the description fully discloses the destructive nature: impact on targeting ad sets, possible delivery stoppage, irreversibility, and the caveat about approximate_count not being restored. It goes beyond simple 'deletes' to explain real-world consequences and mitigation steps, making the tool's behavior transparent.

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 relatively long but every sentence carries critical safety information. It front-loads the core action and return value, then proceeds from broad consequences to specific mitigation steps. The structure is logical, and the density is justified for a destructive, irreversible operation.

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?

Given the complexity of this destructive mutation tool, the absence of annotations, and the lack of an output schema, the description covers all necessary contextual aspects: what it does, what it returns, side effects, irreversibility, prerequisites, and related tool usage. It is complete and self-sufficient for an agent to decide and execute safely.

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%, with both account_id and audience_id already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameters themselves, such as formats or fallbacks, beyond what the schema provides. It earns the baseline 3 for not compensating further, but also does not need to.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes a Custom Audience.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_ads_audiences_create, meta_ads_audiences_list, and meta_ads_audiences_get. It also scopes to 'Custom Audience' rather than lookalike audiences, avoiding ambiguity.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool and provides a recommended pre-flight workflow: call meta_ads_audiences_get first to identify impacted ad sets, consider pausing them, and log before-state for potential rollback. This offers clear context and practical alternatives, setting expectations for safe usage.

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