remove_extension

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and delivers exceptionally. It documents the two-step order, the abort-on-batch-error case (nothing landed, nothing to reconcile), the mid-apply failure case (disassociated=True, deleted=False), and that a retry re-runs ALL steps. This is exactly the transactional nuance an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the failure-mode paragraphs are dense and genuinely useful. The 'Live-verified 2026-07-30' line is extraneous noise that does not help an agent call the tool, costing a point.

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 complex transactional tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavioral risks thoroughly and explains what the result carries on failure. It omits the success result shape and parameter semantics, but the self-evident param names keep the overall package complete enough.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the parameters. The names campaign_id and extension_id are self-evident integers, and the two-step narrative implies their roles, but with zero schema descriptions the description should have compensated and does not.

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 opening line 'Draft removal: disassociate from campaign, then delete from library' states a specific verb, resource, and two-step scope. The 'Draft' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling removal tools (remove_entity, remove_keywords, remove_geo_target) and pairs naturally with list_extensions.

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?

Usage context is only implied through 'Draft removal' — an agent can infer it applies to draft extensions that require disassociation before deletion. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of preferring this over remove_entity when an extension is not campaign-attached.

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