create_ad_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a complex mutation tool with 19 parameters, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic purpose statement, though it lacks the additional context needed for such a complex tool.

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 creation tool with 19 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and complex advertising domain context, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't address critical aspects like parameter meanings, usage context, behavioral expectations, or how this tool relates to siblings in the advertising hierarchy.

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%, meaning none of the 19 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters—not even the required ones like 'ad_account_id', 'campaign_id', or 'name'. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of what values to provide for any parameter.

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 ('Create') and resource ('an ad set under a campaign'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_ad' or 'create_campaign', which would require specifying what distinguishes an ad set from those other entities.

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 like 'clone_ad_set' or 'update_ad_set'. It mentions the parent relationship ('under a campaign') but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for creating an ad set versus other advertising entities.

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