manage_audience

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

The description lists a delete action, which is a destructive operation, while the annotations set destructiveHint to false. That is an annotation contradiction. The confirm_hash note is helpful, but the conflicting metadata undermines the safety signal rather than adding trustworthy context.

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 compact and front-loaded: resource scope, action enum, then conditional parameter notes. No filler is present, though the terse command syntax could be more readable with per-action bullets.

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 multi-action tool with six parameters, this is incomplete: rename is never explained, list has no context, and the two-step confirm_hash flow is only hinted at. The output schema may cover return values, but the input and action semantics are not fully specified.

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 for the schema's bare parameter names, but it only explains file_path/user_ids for create and confirm_hash for delete/clone. The title, audience_id, and rename/list usage remain unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently fill all parameters.

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 opens with 'Custom audiences' and enumerates the five actions (list/create/rename/delete/clone), so an agent can tell this is the audience-management tool and roughly what it does. It does not fully define each action, but the resource and command set are specific enough to separate it from ad/account/event siblings.

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?

It gives explicit input-mode guidance for create (file_path or user_ids) and a precondition for delete/clone (confirm_hash), which is useful routing within the tool. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over a sibling, and list/rename have no usage guidance at all.

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