ArmaVita Meta Ads MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Duplicate' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's rate-limited, what happens to the original creative, whether the duplication is immediate or asynchronous, or what authentication is needed beyond the access token parameter. The mention of 'Meta's local Graph copy edge' is technical but doesn't clarify practical implications.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function, though the lack of additional context means it may be too brief rather than optimally concise.

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?

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what errors might occur, or provide usage context. While the output schema may document return values, the description should still cover behavioral aspects and parameter semantics that aren't captured elsewhere.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters (7 optional), the description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain what 'ad_creative_id' should be, how the suffix is applied, what fields can be overridden, or the purpose of the access token. The schema documents parameter names and types, but the description provides no additional semantic context.

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 clearly states the action ('Duplicate a creative') and the resource ('creative'), and mentions the implementation method ('using Meta's local Graph copy edge'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_ad_creative' by focusing on duplication rather than creation from scratch. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other clone tools like 'clone_ad' or 'clone_ad_set'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools including 'create_ad_creative', 'update_ad_creative', and other clone operations, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when this specific duplication method is preferred over creating a new creative from scratch.

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