ads_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden; it does disclose that the tool writes two artifacts (seed .md and benchmarks JSON) and accepts CSV or JSON input. It does not say whether it overwrites existing files, what happens to malformed exports, or what errors look like — meaningful gaps for a file-writing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler that names input, input formats, and both outputs. It is perhaps too terse given the tool's file-writing side effects, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential input formats and the two produced artifacts, which is the minimum an agent needs to invoke it. It omits overwrite behavior, expected export schema, and failure modes, leaving gaps for a mutation-style 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: `out` is documented in the schema, but `file` has no schema description, and the description compensates by explaining it is a Meta/Google Ads export in CSV or JSON with an absolute path. That is real added meaning, but the format/validation expectations (e.g., required columns) remain unspecified.

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 (turn/convert) and both the input resource (Meta/Google Ads export) and outputs (seed Markdown + benchmarks JSON), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It doesn't contrast with the nearby actuals_import sibling, which is the main thing a reader would want clarified.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as actuals_import or campaign_plan, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the usage context purely from the tool name.

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