Permanently remove a Meta ad image by its hash, optionally specifying the ad account. Use this when you need to delete an image from Facebook or Instagram ad assets; the action cannot be undone.
Delete an ad image by hash. This action is irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | Image hash to delete | |
| account_id | No | Ad account ID the image belongs to (e.g. 'act_123' or '123'). Falls back to META_AD_ACCOUNT_ID env var if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Input schema / properties / account_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Ad account ID the image belongs to (e.g. 'act_123' or '123'). Falls back to META_AD_ACCOUNT_ID env var if omitted.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait for a destructive operation: irreversibility. It omits other behavioral context such as permission requirements and any cascade effect on ads/creatives that reference the image.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive nature front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
Adequate minimum for a two-parameter destructive tool whose params are fully documented, but for an irreversible delete with no annotations and no output schema, an agent would benefit from knowing required permissions and whether dependent ads break.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'hash' and the optional 'account_id' (with its env-var fallback) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format or the fallback behavior, so it sits at the baseline.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('ad image') with the identifying key ('by hash'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_image, list_images, upload_image and delete_video, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning about which ads or creatives may reference the image. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.