ad_manager_fb_upsert_ad

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

The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true). It does not explain what an upsert does in practice—whether it creates or updates, what side effects occur, or any requirements. Since annotations provide minimal coverage and the description adds nothing, this is a complete failure.

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 extremely concise (two words), but it is under-specified to the point of being uninformative. This is not effective conciseness but rather a lack of meaningful content. It fails to provide even a complete sentence.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 16 parameters, no output schema, and a non-trivial operation (upsert). The description gives no context about the create/update semantics, required parameters (campaignId, adsetId) beyond what the schema already lists, or any operational details. The description is woefully incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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?

The input schema has descriptions for all 16 parameters, providing 100% schema coverage. The description itself contributes nothing to parameter understanding. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and no additional value is added, so 3 is appropriate.

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 'Upsert ad' is a tautology of the tool name 'ad_manager_fb_upsert_ad'. It restates the verb and resource without adding any specificity, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like ad_manager_fb_upsert_adset or ad_manager_fb_upsert_campaign. The agent gets no insight into what an upsert entails or how this ad-specific tool differs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is a single verb phrase with zero contextual information.

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