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

The description adds that this is a preparation step for an in-place swap, but it does not disclose whether the operation creates a pending state, whether confirmation is required afterward, or what side effects occur. Annotations only say it is not read-only and not destructive, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no filler or redundant wording.

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 operation with eight parameters, a two-phase prepare/confirm/deny structure, and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not explain parameter roles, required versus optional inputs, or the follow-up confirmation step, so an agent lacks enough context to use the tool reliably.

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?

None of the eight parameters are described, and the schema has 0% description coverage. The ambiguous pairs creative_name/creative_names and new_creative_name/replacement_creative_name are not clarified at all, making correct invocation difficult.

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 names a specific verb ('Prepare'), resource ('existing ad'), and object ('in-place library-creative swap'), which distinguishes it at a high level from confirm/deny sibling tools. However, 'library-creative swap' is somewhat jargon-heavy and not fully explained.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to call this tool versus ads_replace_creative_confirm, ads_replace_creative_deny, or ads_replace_page_prepare. The word 'Prepare' implies it is the first step, but the description does not state the intended workflow or prerequisites.

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