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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds useful context that this creates an empty container and that no Deckly agent participates, but says nothing about what happens to an existing ads set or what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The parenthetical about the agent is slightly tangential but does disambiguate the workflow.

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 low-complexity creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the workflow context adequately. The notable gap is the required `title` parameter, whose meaning and role are never stated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains `request` ('what the person asked, in their own words') but leaves `title` — the only required parameter — completely undefined, so an agent must guess what the title refers to.

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 ('Make an empty set of ads') plus the account scope, which separates it from start_deck and start_landing well enough for an agent to pick it. It also notes the follow-on workflow ('designed with the ads tools'), though it never names the sibling tools it replaces.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to begin an ads project, then work with the ads_* tools with no agent involved. There is no explicit when-not guidance and the competing entry points (start_deck, start_landing) are not mentioned, so routing between them is left to inference.

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