direct.hf.moderate_ads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Send ads for moderation' minimally indicates a write-like action, but it does not explain what moderation means, whether ads are resubmitted or altered, how apply/dry_run behave, or any auth requirements. This leaves most behavioral burden unmet.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no rambling. However, the opening 'Human-friendly:' is filler that does not earn its place, and the whole description is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity. Structure is efficient but slightly noisy.

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 7-parameter, likely mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not cover the apply/dry_run flags, account resolution, auth needs, or what the moderation result entails. An agent cannot confidently invoke it without opening the schema and guessing.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. 'By ids or campaign' clarifies that ad_ids and campaign_id/campaign_name are alternative targeting modes, but apply, dry_run, account_id, and direct_client_login receive no meaningful explanation in either place. Partial compensation is not enough.

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 states a clear verb ('send') and resource ('ads') with the goal ('for moderation'), so the core action is identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling tool performs ad moderation, which helps indirectly. 'Human-friendly' is vague filler that adds no 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?

The phrase 'by ids or campaign' hints at two input modes but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like direct.raw_call or other direct.hf operations. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual recommendations. Usage is only implied by the action itself.

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