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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it warns that Meta never allows forms to be edited or deleted, explains that dry_run=true creates nothing and is free, and explicitly says to never invent a privacy policy link. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and constraint information an agent needs before invoking a mutating 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 long but each sentence carries essential operational guidance: purpose, invocation timing, irreversibility, privacy policy requirement, unsupported features, and downstream integration. It is well-structured, starting with the core action and important warning before more detailed notes, which is appropriate for a tool with nested schema and multiple actions.

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 full lifecycle: preconditions (privacy policy), dry-run preview, create/duplicate-as-edit/archive/reactivate, unsupported features, and integration with adsap_create_ad and adsap_list_meta_assets. Since the input schema already documents parameters in depth and the description supplies the workflow glue, nothing critical is missing even without an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the practical role of key parameters: dry_run defaults true for preview and the returned form_id plugs into creative_spec.leadgen_form_id of adsap_create_ad. This integration context helps the agent chain calls correctly rather than just knowing parameter types.

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 a specific verb+resource combination ('Create, duplicate, archive or reactivate a Meta Instant Form') and defines what an Instant Form is. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pointing to adsap_list_meta_assets for listing forms and adsap_create_ad for consuming the returned form_id. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage conditions ('Use it when the user wants a lead ad and has no suitable form yet, or wants a changed version') and names the sibling for listing forms. It also details the two-call dry_run workflow, instructs the agent to request a privacy policy link, and lists unsupported feature categories so the agent knows when to avoid this tool.

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