Update ads

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

Annotations only declare mutation, idempotency, and open-world traits; the description adds the real operational context: the account is live, current values are read first and preserved in the audit log, batches are capped at 500, and confirm gates risky changes. It stops short of describing partial-failure or per-item error behavior.

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 purpose and impact, then parameter detail, then safety gates - a logical order with no filler sentences. The final sentence packs three distinct rules together, which is dense but still parseable.

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 bulk mutation tool with three parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the shape of items, the confirmation protocol, and the audit-log side effect. The only material hole is ad_account_id, and return values are already handled by the existing output schema.

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% and the items array is an untyped object with additionalProperties true, so the description carries the full burden - it specifies 'id plus only the fields to change', gives two concrete examples, and enumerates the confirm values ('APPLY', 'ARCHIVE'). The ad_account_id parameter is never explained, which keeps this below a 5.

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 ('Update ads'), adds batch scope ('up to 500 per call') and impact ('Changes the live account'). Differentiation from siblings is only implicit - the confirm='ARCHIVE' note hints at the archive_ads tool, but it never names an alternative.

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 concrete conditions for the confirm parameter (bid/budget rise above PINTEREST_ADS_MAX_INCREASE_PCT, large batches, status ARCHIVED) which effectively tells an agent when extra confirmation is required. It does not state when to prefer create_ads, archive_ads, or bulk_upsert instead, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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