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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real value by bounding that destructiveness ('budget, audience and words do not change'), stating the cost ('Free'), and describing the non-attaching fallback of returning a link. It does not say whether an applied link change is revertible, which is the main remaining behavioral unknown for a live-ad mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and its platform condition, then fallback, cost, and the confirm rule — no filler sentences. Slightly dense packaging (bare 'Free.' fragment, inline platform list) keeps it just short of ideal.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: what changes, what does not, when it degrades to a manual paste link, and the preview gate. Missing only the revert path and a pointer to the sibling tool for unsupported platforms.

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% and the confirm parameter description already carries the preview-after-owner-approval semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the confirm preview rule but says nothing extra about the id parameter or its provenance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — pointing a live ad at its page link — and scopes it to the platforms that permit a link-only change (Meta, TikTok, Google Search/Display), with the fallback spelled out. An agent can tell this apart from sibling edit/publish tools without opening their schemas.

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 'Without confirm:true it is a preview' clause plus the platform-support branch gives a clear preview-then-apply protocol and tells the agent what happens when the platform does not allow the change. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., soclo_ad_pages_edit) for the unsupported case, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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