Delete ad

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the non-obvious human-in-the-loop confirmation workflow and the critical clarification that 'confirm=true is the gate flag, not the hash'. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences plus a routing clause, with the destructive warning and the confirmation sequence front-loaded. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive flow is fully covered. It omits permission/authorization requirements and any note on consequences for related entities, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 compensates well for the two risky parameters: it explains that confirm_hash comes from a prior call and that confirm is a boolean gate rather than the hash. ad_id is left unexplained, but its meaning is self-evident from the verb.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete an ad') and immediately flags it as destructive. It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by noting 'To pause use `edit_ad`', so an agent can pick it correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: call without confirm_hash, show the user, then call again with the returned hash. It also states the when-not condition (pausing should use edit_ad) and disambiguates which flag is the real gate.

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