create_dynamic_creative

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key behavior (Meta automatically combines images, videos, titles, bodies, and CTAs), which adds context beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or what the return value contains, which is important for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the purpose with a clear verb and resource, and the second explains the automatic combination behavior. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 explains the core functionality, but it does not mention what the tool returns (no output schema), prerequisites such as needing to upload assets first, or how to reference those assets in asset_feed_spec. While the schema covers fields, operational details are missing. The context is adequate for a simple create operation, but falls short of complete guidance.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already documented in detail. The tool description adds a sentence about how the asset_feed_spec arrays (images, videos, titles, bodies, CTAs) are used, complementing the schema but not adding new syntax or parameter-level details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Create' and specific resource 'dynamic creative' with the required 'asset_feed_spec'. The second sentence explains what makes it dynamic (Meta auto-combines assets to find best performers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_creative.

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 clear context that this tool is for creating dynamic creatives where Meta automatically tests combinations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over create_creative or other alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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