Update an audience

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one valuable piece of context – 'Changes the live account' – signalling real-world mutation, but it says nothing about partial-update semantics (do omitted/null fields leave values untouched?), whether the rule replacement is wholesale, or how dry-run interacts with this call.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the actionable scope front-loaded ahead of the mutation warning. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a live-mutating tool whose schema documents none of its five parameters, the description omits the update semantics (partial vs. full replacement) and the role of ad_account_id, which an agent likely needs to call it correctly.

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 five parameters, so the description must compensate; it names three of the five (name, description, rule) but adds no format or structural detail, and the 'rule' object parameter is left completely opaque. audience_id and ad_account_id – both critical to targeting the right object – are unmentioned, leaving real gaps for a low-coverage 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Rename an audience or change its description or rule') and enumerates the mutable fields, which distinguishes it from the sibling create/delete/list audience tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it lands at a clear 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'update' – an agent can infer this is for modifying an existing audience, but nothing tells it when to prefer this over pinterest_ads_delete_audience, pinterest_ads_create_audience, or the dry-run mechanism. No prerequisites (account scope, permissions) or exclusions are stated.

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