delete_ad

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the operation requires confirmation, the first call returns a hash for the second step, and confirm_hash is explicitly distinguished from the TG_ADS_WRITE_GATE. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and helps an agent understand the multi-step destructive behavior.

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 short and front-loaded: it states the action first, then the flow, then the warning. The 'confirm: TG_ADS_WRITE_GATE (danger)' line is cryptic and may confuse an agent, but overall the structure is efficient and every sentence 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?

The description covers the core two-step flow and the dangerous nature of the operation, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, the exact role of the confirm boolean and the relationship between confirm, confirm_hash, and the gate are underspecified. For a destructive tool with no schema parameter descriptions, this is a notable gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining confirm_hash as the returned platform hash, not the gate. However, the semantics of the confirm boolean are ambiguous—'confirm: TG_ADS_WRITE_GATE (danger)' does not clearly explain how the boolean should be set. ad_id is self-evident, but the incomplete explanation of confirm leaves a meaningful gap.

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 explicitly says 'Delete an ad' with a specific verb and resource, and goes further by describing the two-step confirmation flow. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_ad or clone_ad, and it is not a tautology of the tool name.

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 an explicit call sequence: first call without confirm_hash, then pass the returned hash to confirm. It also warns about the danger gate. It does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the actionable two-step instruction is sufficient guidance for most cases.

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