draft_create_image_ad_item

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 only says 'Create a new draft image ad item', which implies a mutation but does not explain whether this is a safe draft operation, what validation occurs, whether the ad item is persisted immediately, or what the response looks like. Critical behavior for a draft workflow is completely undisclosed.

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, short sentence with zero filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the main action and object, making it easy to parse. While it is terse, conciseness is about the absence of waste, and this description has no waste.

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 creates a draft image ad item with a nested open-ended 'draft' object, but the description provides no context about the draft workflow, required fields beyond 'name', or how the ad item relates to the campaign draft. No output schema exists and no annotations are present, so the agent must rely on the description alone—making it inadequate for safe invocation.

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 input schema descriptions cover both parameters: campaign_draft_id is 'Draft campaign ID this ad item belongs to' and draft is 'Object containing image ad item fields (name required)'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. It provides no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource ('new draft image ad item'). It is more specific than a bare tautology and the resource type distinguishes it from sibling tools like draft_create_catalog_ad_item or draft_create_native_ad_item. However, it does not elaborate on what 'draft' means or how this differs from the regular create_image_ad_item, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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. The description does not mention that this is for creating draft ad items before publishing, nor does it reference the non-draft create_image_ad_item or the draft update/delete counterparts. An agent is left without context about which tool to pick in a draft workflow.

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