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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond the schema by noting persistence in Supabase for cross-session continuity and by framing the tool as a store for recommended setup plans. However, it does not disclose destructive delete behavior, update semantics, permissions, or return/output behavior, which matters for a CRUD tool with no annotation support.

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 three sentences and every sentence earns its place: the first states scope, the second explains persistence, and the third gives workflow placement. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, though it is slightly more prose-heavy than the tightest possible definition.

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 an 11-parameter CRUD tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential workflow cue and persistence rationale, but it leaves return values, action-specific behavior, and delete/update consequences under-explained. The schema covers parameter semantics well, but the description alone is not fully complete for such a complex tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters, including required-for-create flags and CRUD action enums. The description adds workflow-level context around business_context and recommended_steps but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 states a clear verb set ('Create, read, update, or delete') applied to a specific resource ('structured onboarding plan for a Meta ad account') and adds uniqueness via Supabase persistence and the prerequisite workflow. It is easily distinguishable from the many sibling get/list/manage tools because it targets onboarding-plan storage rather than ad entities or external data.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: after gathering business context via adsap_analyze_website and adsap_get_account_health, then use this tool to store the recommended setup plan. It provides clear workflow context but does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for the same job, so it stops short of a 5.

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