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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the side effect 'may upload media to Meta' and clarifies that this call only prepares and that a separate confirm applies the change. Return details are omitted but an output schema exists.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the side effect and the required next step. Nothing is padded, though the terseness borders on under-specification for an 8-parameter tool.

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 tool with 8 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it never explains which parameters drive the page swap or what 'prepare' produces. An output schema does exist, so return values need not be covered, but the parameter and behavioral gaps leave an agent under-equipped.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them and instead adds almost nothing. Only the loose phrase 'page swap' hints at the page-related inputs; ad_id, ad_name, page_ids, facebook_page_id, etc. remain entirely unexplained.

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 phrase 'Prepare page swap' gives a verb and a resource, but 'page swap' is vague and never says it operates on an ad, which is the actual scope implied by the name and required params (ad_id, ad_account_id). It weakly gestures at a sibling with 'Confirm separately,' but does not name ads_replace_page_confirm or otherwise differentiate cleanly.

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?

It implies the two-step flow by telling the agent the change is not applied until a separate confirm, which is meaningful usage context. However it states no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions, leaving most routing inference to the reader.

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