ghl_ad_fb_page_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the description does not need to reiterate destruction. It adds the endpoint and OAuth scopes, which are useful technical details. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., impact on related campaigns or posts) or confirm irreversibility. The bar is partially lowered due to annotations, but the description could still add context about the operation's finality.

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 concise, with a title sentence followed by a single clarifying sentence and then technical details (endpoint, OAuth scopes). It is front-loaded with the purpose. No irrelevant information is included, and every line serves a purpose.

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 nature of a delete operation with two required parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and technical details. However, it does not mention return values (no output schema), error cases, or prerequisites. It is minimally complete for straightforward use but lacks depth for complex scenarios.

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 100%; both parameters have descriptions in the input schema (pageId: 'Facebook page ID', locationId: 'Location identifier'). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Delete page connection' and 'Remove a Facebook page connection from a location', specifying the verb (delete/remove) and resource (Facebook page connection). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ghl_ad_fb_page_list and ghl_ad_fb_page_set_default, which are about listing or setting default pages.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., must have an existing connection), limitations, or situations where other tools (like ghl_ad_fb_page_list for checking connections) should be used first.

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