Delete Custom Audience

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description goes further by stating 'permanently' and 'This cannot be undone', adding a critical warning beyond the boolean hint. It does not contradict annotations and provides valuable behavioral context about irreversibility, satisfying the requirement to add value beyond structured data.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus a one-line args list. The main action and irreversible warning are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. The repetition of the arg is redundant but not bloated, and the structure is easy to parse for an agent.

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 destructive operation with a single parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the irrevocable nature, and the parameter. The annotations handle the destructive hint, and the schema defines the parameter. No output schema is needed, and no other critical context is missing for correct invocation.

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 a description for audience_id ('Custom audience ID') with 100% coverage. The description repeats the same meaning in the Args section ('Custom audience ID to delete'). This adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Deletes' with the resource 'custom audience' and explicitly notes permanence ('permanently', 'cannot be undone'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling delete tools targeting other resources (e.g., meta_delete_post, meta_delete_instagram_media) and leaves no ambiguity about its scope.

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 clearly implies usage for deleting custom audiences and the permanence warning informs the decision to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the self-contained nature and the distinct resource in the tool name, an agent can infer when to use it. A clear context is provided, though no 'when not to use' caveat is given.

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