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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, and the description adds real value on top: the preview/owner-approval gate on spend and deletion, requestId reuse for outcome recovery, and the condition that a change is only 'live' when status is active. What it lacks is any statement of what gets irreversibly destroyed or what permissions are required.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the identity then the risky-path protocol. The final 'Fields: soclo://tools/soclo_ads_update_ad_account' fragment is a dangling resource pointer that consumes space without delivering usable meaning.

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, nested-payload destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation workflow well but not the approved-preview expectation fields or the payload field set, leaving the agent to infer how expectedCurrency/expectedBudgetAmount tie into the preview step.

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 60%, so several parameters (expectedCurrency, expectedBudgetAmount, expectedBudgetType, platform/adAccountId split) rely on the schema alone. The description reinforces confirm and requestId but only by repeating their existing schema descriptions, and the trailing 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' pointer is opaque rather than explanatory.

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 ("Update ad account settings") that an agent can map directly onto the ad-account settings resource, and the spend-cap/reset-amount payload fields confirm it is the account-level settings mutator rather than the campaign/ad-set updaters. It does not, however, explicitly disambiguate itself from near-name siblings like soclo_ads_update_ad_account_manager_link.

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?

Gives a concrete gating rule: spending or deletion changes require a preview, then owner-approved confirm:true carrying the same requestId. That tells the agent when confirmation is mandatory, though it never names the tool that produces the preview or states explicitly which other tool to reach for.

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