audiences_apply_to_adset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It is transparent about the destructive nature: 'adset targeting WILL be rewritten' and the confirm parameter 'must be True' as a safety gate. It also explains merge semantics ('replace' overwrites entirely, 'merge' preserves adset keys not overridden) and the effect of overrides. This goes well beyond the schema, which has no descriptions.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a brief rationale and a well-structured Args section with bullet points. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff. The length is justified by the complexity of the merge and override semantics.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, merge logic, overrides, safety confirm), the description covers all aspects: purpose, the workaround context, complete parameter semantics, and behavioral warnings. It lacks an output schema and annotations, but the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and understand its effects.

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%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. Each of the 5 parameters is explained with examples, defaults, and behavior: saved_audience_id with example, adset_id as target, merge with two modes and their effects, overrides with a usage example, and confirm with a warning. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Copy targeting from a saved audience to a live adset.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audiences_update_saved (which updates the saved audience itself) or ads_update_adset (which directly edits adset settings). The workaround context further clarifies its unique role.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: it is the workaround for the saved_audiences write capability gate, and explains the mechanism (pull targeting from saved audience, POST on adset). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context implies that direct saved-audience writes are not available, making this the intended alternative. This meets the 'explicit when' criterion, though it could more directly name excluded alternatives.

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