zuckerbot_create_seed_audience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It credibly goes beyond a simple statement of creation by describing the recovery-mode behavior: 'skips Meta audience creation and user upload and only writes the registry record.' It also adds context around verification against the bound ad account. It could still disclose more about side effects, failure behavior beyond the referenced error, or prerequisites, but what is present is substantive.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, then seamlessly folds in the selective recovery case. The adopt-explanation sentence is somewhat complex but necessary and not inflated. Every sentence conveys distinct information, and nothing feels redundant with sibling context or the schema.

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?

The description covers the normal path and the recovery path quite well, but with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is still left without clarity on what the tool returns after a successful registry write, whether a audience ID is returned for downstream steps, or what happens when min_contacts is not met. Since the tool is positioned as a first step in a pipeline, describing its output would meaningfully complete the picture.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that source_stage controls which CRM lifecycle stage seeds the audience and that adopt_meta_audience_id is not just a field but a full recovery path that bypasses creation. This goes beyond the schema's short descriptions and helps an agent reason about live business semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and names the exact resource ('a Meta custom audience') plus the key input ('hashed CAPI user data', 'CRM lifecycle stage'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling audience tools like list_audiences, refresh_audience, and create_lookalike_audience by explaining it is the first step in seed creation and by detailing the recovery path via adopt_meta_audience_id.

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 says when to use this tool with 'Use this as the first step to create retargeting or reactivation audiences from your own first-party CRM data.' It also specifies a concrete recovery use case for the adopt_meta_audience_id parameter, which disambiguates an important scenario. However, it does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools like create_lookalike_audience or refresh_audience.

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