creative_test

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

The description claims the tool 'generates' (a write operation), but annotations set readOnlyHint=true, indicating read-only. This is a direct contradiction. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond the 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 a single sentence and concise, but it lacks structure and could be more informative. No wasted words, but the front-loading of 'protocol' is slightly abstract.

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?

With no output schema and only one parameter, the description fails to explain what 'manages' entails, the return format, or any side effects. The contradiction further undermines 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'The market/pipeline slug'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the parameter is fully documented.

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 purpose: 'generates and manages ad creative variations.' The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like stress_test or rapid_test that focus on other aspects of testing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling testing tools (e.g., rapid_test, stress_test, validate_check), the agent has no basis for choosing creative_test.

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