Create ads from Pins

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the 30-at-a-time batching, that changes hit the live account, that items without a status default to PAUSED, that Pinterest review gates serving, and that confirm='APPLY' is an escalation gate for large batches and over-max budget/bid values. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking a write tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the mutating action and batch limit, then the payload shape, then the review and confirmation rules. Dense and telegraphic in places (e.g. the creative_type list), but nearly every clause carries operational meaning.

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 batch-write tool with an output schema already present, the definition supplies everything else an agent needs: payload shape, Pin ownership requirement, creative_type mapping, default status, review delay, confirmation gate, and dry-run path. No material gap remains for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load — and it does for items, with a full example object, field names (ad_group_id, pin_id, creative_type, name, destination_url), the creative_type enum, and the PAUSED default. It also explains confirm's escalation rule. The ad_account_id parameter, however, is never explained, so the compensation is strong but not total.

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 ('Create ads') plus concrete scope (up to 500 per call, sent 30 at a time). The description clearly delineates this from siblings like pinterest_ads_create_ad_pin (which makes the Pin media) and pinterest_ads_create_campaigns/ad_groups.

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?

Gives actionable when-to-use context: find a Pin with pinterest_ads_list_pins or create one with pinterest_ads_create_ad_pin, rehearse with dry-run first, and use confirm='APPLY' for large batches or out-of-range budgets/bids. It stops short of explicitly contrasting create_ads with pinterest_ads_bulk_upsert or update_ads as the alternative for edits.

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