delete_ad_account_spend_limit_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a delete but does not mention irreversibility, side effects on the ad account, permission requirements, or behavior if the window has already ended. This is a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, and the key scoping detail ('active or scheduled', 'before it ends') is included without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation, the description plus 100% schema coverage is arguably sufficient to invoke the tool. However, the lack of behavioral transparency around irreversibility and side effects, combined with no output schema and no annotations, leaves the definition only minimally complete rather than fully contextual.

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 window_id and ad_account_id are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('spend limit window'), and clarifies the applicable lifecycle state ('active or scheduled'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ad_account_spend_limit_window, update_ad_account_spend_limit_window, and get_ad_account_spend_limit_windows.

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 gives clear context: the tool applies to active or scheduled spend limit windows and must be used before the window ends. It implies the tool is not for completed windows, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when update would be more appropriate than delete.

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