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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a preview-then-confirm approval gate tied to requestId reuse, and the condition that the change is only live once status is active. This is valuable beyond the annotations, though the mechanism remains somewhat terse.

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 short and front-loads the action, followed by the critical approval flow. The trailing 'Fields: soclo://...' pointer is slightly cryptic but keeps the description compact.

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 10-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the crucial confirmation/recovery flow but omits key specifics an agent would want: the nested users payload shape (email/phone, 10k cap), the role of platform/adAccountId, and how to verify the 'active' status afterward.

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 60%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates confirm and requestId semantics that the schema already documents, and defers the rest to an external doc URL ('Fields: soclo://...'), adding little new meaning for the undocumented parameters such as audienceId, payload.users, and platform.

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 a specific verb and resource: adding users to an ad audience. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like soclo_ads_update_ad_audience or soclo_ads_replace_ad_audience_companies, but the action is unambiguous.

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 supplies an operational workflow (preview, owner-approved confirm:true, same requestId, claim live only when status is active), which is useful usage context. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over write-alternatives like replace_ad_audience_companies or update_ad_audience.

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