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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool defaults to PAUSED, that dry_run renders a confirmation card, that real creation is deferred until explicit user request, and that app promotion requires specific link_url and call_to_action settings. It also explains the promoted app binding comes from the ad set. This is highly transparent for a mutation tool.

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 dense but efficient. It front-loads the primary action, then delivers critical workflow instructions and app promotion specifics. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the second sentence is long and packs multiple clauses. It could be more structured, but there is no waste.

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 tool's complexity (nested creative_spec, many required fields, low schema coverage), the description is not fully complete. It covers the most critical aspects—the dry_run workflow and app promotion requirements—but does not explain the full creative_spec structure or how to source required IDs like ad_set_id or page_id. An agent could still be uncertain about constructing a valid request beyond the highlighted patterns.

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 description coverage is only 13%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for dry_run (validate and render card), link_url and call_to_action (for app promotion), and status (defaults to PAUSED). However, it does not explain many other parameters, particularly within creative_spec (e.g., page_id, headlines, primary_texts) or how to obtain required IDs. The description adds value for critical parameters but leaves many undocumented.

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 the action: 'Create a Meta ad (image/video) in an ad set.' This distinguishes it from siblings like adsap_create_ad_from_ig_post (which creates from an IG post) and adsap_create_ad_sets (which creates ad sets). It also notes the default status (PAUSED), adding specificity. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 gives explicit, actionable usage guidance: 'ALWAYS call with dry_run: true first' and details the entire workflow—validates, renders a review card, user confirms, creates paused, activates in-card. It also states when not to call the real create ('do not call the real create from chat unless the user explicitly asks in a new message'). This is exemplary usage direction, going beyond simple 'when to use' to prescribe the exact invocation pattern.

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