ad_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose key safety behavior: mutations require explicit confirmation, confirmation timing is constrained, and DELETE is permanent. It does not cover permission requirements or side effects for non-delete changing actions, but it covers the central risk profile well.

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 short, front-loaded with what the tool does, and then immediately covers the critical confirmation and permanence rules. Every sentence contributes to safe invocation guidance.

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 tool has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an open-ended action string, so the description must carry substantial context. It covers the most important safety rules and the source of action names, but it leaves finnkode unexplained and does not enumerate or constrain the full action set. The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It clarifies the action parameter by saying names come from my_ads and giving DELETE as an example, and it explains confirm=true semantics in detail. However, it never explains the required finnkode parameter, leaving a significant gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run an action finn.no offers for one of the user's ads,' and gives DELETE as an example. It clearly identifies the ad domain and points to my_ads as the source of action names, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as update_draft.

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?

It gives important usage context: action names come from my_ads, changing actions require confirm=true, and confirmation must follow explicit user agreement in chat. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like update_draft or delete-related siblings.

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