update_ad

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior: 'Only provided fields will be modified,' indicating a partial-update semantic. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or response behavior, leaving some opacity for a mutation tool. This is a modest improvement over a bare 'update' but lacks depth.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every clause earns its place: the second sentence adds a critical behavioral nuance without redundancy. Ideal conciseness.

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 simple update tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and partial-update behavior. However, it omits any mention of the required identifier (ad_id) or likely response/error behavior. Since the schema provides detailed parameter descriptions, the description is adequate but not exceptional; more context on return values or side effects would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by clarifying that only provided fields will be modified, which directly informs how the optional parameters should be used. This goes beyond what the schema states about each individual field, providing a holistic behavioral contract.

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 tool's action (update) and resource (existing ad). It distinguishes from siblings like create_ad and delete_ad by specifying the update operation on ads. However, it does not elaborate on scope or differentiate among other update tools, unlike the high-caliber example that explicitly names alternatives.

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 phrase 'Update an existing ad' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when modifying an existing ad. It implicitly excludes creation, deletion, or retrieval. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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