Delete Saved Audience

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

注解已声明 destructiveHint=true，而描述只重复了“deletes”这一基本行为，没有增加任何额外的行为特征，例如删除是否不可逆、是否影响关联的广告活动或是否触发级联删除。在已有注解的情况下，描述未提供增值信息，仅与注解保持一致。

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?

描述非常简短，一句核心功能加上一个简单的参数说明，没有冗余内容。结构上可直接扫描，但 Args 部分与schema信息重复，略有冗余，不过整体仍算高效。

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?

对于破坏性操作，即使有注解，描述仍缺乏完整上下文：未说明返回值、权限要求、操作是否可逆或需要哪些前置条件。虽然工具简单，但正因为操作不可恢复，应至少提供警告或后续操作指引，因此不完整。

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的描述覆盖率为0%，描述中的 Args 部分补充了 audience_id 是“Saved audience ID”，这比schema本身多了一点语义。但该信息基本可以从参数名和工具名推断出，未说明ID格式、如何获取或必须存在的上下文，因此补偿不足。

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?

描述以明确的动词和资源开头：“Deletes a saved audience”，清楚说明了操作对象。它能与兄弟工具（如 meta_delete_custom_audience、meta_delete_post）通过资源类型区分，但未提供任何超出标题的细节，因此略低于满分。

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?

描述没有说明何时应该使用此工具，也没有提及与其他删除类工具的适用场景差异。仅凭“Delete Saved Audience”推断用途，但缺乏如“需要 audience_id，可从 meta_list_saved_audiences 获取”等使用引导，因此没有提供有效指导。

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