draft_update_custom_html_ad_item

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not explain draft workflow semantics (e.g., changes are staged until saved), whether partial updates are supported, or any permission/reversibility details. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is zero wasted text, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 a nested 'draft' object with additionalProperties allowed, yet no examples or enumeration of valid fields are provided. It also lacks any mention of return values or the draft-save workflow. Given the potential ambiguity and no annotations, the description is incomplete.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (id as 'Draft ad item ID', draft as 'Object containing custom HTML ad item fields to update'), so schema coverage is high. The description adds no extra detail about accepted fields or id formats, keeping the score at the baseline of 3.

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 'Update an existing draft custom HTML ad item' clearly states a specific verb ('update') and a specific resource ('draft custom HTML ad item'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like draft_create_custom_html_ad_item, draft_get_custom_html_ad_item, and draft_delete_custom_html_ad_item.

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?

Clear context is provided by the qualifier 'draft'—indicating this tool is for draft ad items. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the non-draft sibling update_custom_html_ad_item or mention when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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