Delete an audience

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description still adds real value: the required API key scope audiences:write, the 409 precondition tied to active campaigns, and the side effect that the audience is unlinked from other campaigns before deletion. It stops short of saying whether audience members are removed or what the response looks like, but it goes well beyond the annotation set.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, then scope, endpoint, and the failure/side-effect rule. No filler and no repetition beyond a brief endpoint echo that serves as a locator.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with strong annotations, this covers the essentials an agent needs: permission scope, destructive precondition, and cascade behavior on other campaigns. Gaps remain around downstream effects on audience members and the expected response, but the core decision inputs are present.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema coverage, though the schema text is only a stub ("Path parameter `id`."). The description's "DELETE /audiences/{id}" confirms the value is a path identifier and nothing more, so the baseline 3 applies — no extra format, ID source, or validation guidance is added.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete an audience") and pins it down further with the endpoint DELETE /audiences/{id}. It is clearly distinguishable from the other audience tools (create/get/update/list) and from delete_campaign or delete_folder, though it never names a 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?

The description tells the agent when the call will fail (409 if an ACTIVE campaign uses the audience as primary) but gives no positive when-to-use guidance and no alternatives (e.g., detach the audience from campaigns first, or update_audience). Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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