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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the alias relationship between adset and adgroup parameters, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose behavior like idempotency, permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. It doesn't contradict annotations because none exist.

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 well-structured with a clear introduction, parameter breakdown, and example. It fronts the key purpose and alias explanation, and every sentence adds value. It is detailed but not bloated.

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 16-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides strong parameter guidance and an example, which is critical. It covers most important aspects, though it could maybe mention error conditions or response format, but given constraints, it's quite complete.

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 compensate, and it does exceptionally well. It clearly lists required and optional parameters, explains the alias relationship, provides constraints (name <= 200 chars), and gives an example. This goes far beyond the bare schema.

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 it creates a new saved template for the authenticated user, distinguishes it from templates_get/list/update/delete, and uses a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also mentions it mirrors Meta's templates_create, which adds clarity.

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 provides a clear example and explains when to use it (create new template) and includes context like selecting music with assets_list_music and storing media selections on the create request. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like templates_update, though the sibling context makes this clear.

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