remove_geo_target

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the exact API call, the scope (deletes whatever criterion id is passed, not just locations), and that it is a draft removal. It omits permission requirements and return value, but the substantive behavioral scope is well disclosed.

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?

Two sentences efficiently pack the API, scope, and ID sourcing. The critical disambiguation about non-location targets is front-loaded, and the verification note adds credibility without bloat. No word is wasted.

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?

Given the simple two-integer parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, what it affects, and where to get the ID. It does not mention response behavior or error conditions, but for a simple removal tool the guidance is adequate.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the origin and meaning of criterion_id (from get_entities) and the scope of the operation. It does not elaborate on campaign_id, but the context makes it obvious, and the parameter list is short.

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 a specific verb (draft removal), resource (campaign criterion), and the underlying API call. It explicitly clarifies that the target group covers multiple criterion types, not just Location, which distinguishes it from what the name might imply and from sibling tools like remove_extension.

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 explains when to use it (to delete a campaign criterion) and provides a concrete instruction for obtaining the criterion_id via get_entities. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with remove_entity, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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