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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does so thoroughly. It discloses that ads are always created paused, never spend until activated, inherit budget/targeting/schedule, do not create new entities, and that dry_run defaults to true with a clear preview-then-create flow. This is far beyond minimal transparency.

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 well-structured: the core operation is front-loaded, followed by inheritance behavior, paused-by-default safety, prerequisites, dry_run sequencing, and supported media types. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is wasted.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, activation path, dry-run behavior, and exclusions. An agent has enough information to successfully select and call this tool, including how to prepare required parameters and avoid accidentally spending budget.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow context by naming the exact list tools to resolve ad_set_id, ig_media_id, and ig_account_id, and explains the inheritance behavior that affects how parameters should be interpreted. This pushes it above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turn an existing Instagram post, video, or reel into an ad') and names the exact resource ('inside an EXISTING ad set'), clearly distinguishing it from adsap_create_ad. It also explicitly states what the tool does not do: it does not create a campaign or ad set.

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 an explicit workflow: pick an existing ad set with adsap_list_ad_sets, get the post id from adsap_list_ig_media, and get the Instagram account id from adsap_list_meta_assets. It also clarifies when to use dry_run twice and references adsap_set_entity_status for activation, leaving little to inference.

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