Remove users from a custom audience by providing audience ID and a payload of SHA-256 hashed identifiers. Maintain precise audience control for ad targeting.
Remove users from a custom audience. Payload format is the same as add_users_to_audience.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | JSON string: {schema: ['EMAIL','PHONE',...], data: [['hash1','hash2',...], ...]}. All PII must be SHA-256 hashed. | |
| audience_id | Yes | Audience ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the removal action and payload format reference, without mentioning irreversibility, required permissions, side effects, or whether the removal is permanent. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 short sentences with no fluff, effectively front-loading the main action. It earns efficiency points, though it sacrifices depth that could improve behavioral transparency.
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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. The schema covers parameters, but contextual and behavioral aspects are left entirely unaddressed.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including payload structure and SHA-256 hashing requirement. The description adds only a cross-reference to add_users_to_audience for format, which is helpful but not essential given the schema already carries the details.
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 action ('Remove users') and the target resource ('a custom audience'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_users_to_audience by using the verb 'Remove' and also references the payload format to link with the add tool, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 usage by the action verb and indicates the payload format matches add_users_to_audience, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or any exclusions. There is no contextual guidance beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.