draft_update_image_ad_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description does not state whether changes are draft-only, require specific preconditions, are reversible, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded sentence that is immediately understandable and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for the simple action it names.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested draft object that is unspecified, the one-line description is not enough. It does not explain draft workflow implications, return values, or valid fields for the draft object.

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 tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the 'draft' parameter is an opaque object with no field details, but the description does not worsen this.

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 image ad item' uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this tool from create/delete operations and from non-draft image ad item tools by including '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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like draft_create_image_ad_item, draft_delete_image_ad_item, or the non-draft update_image_ad_item. There is no mention of the draft workflow or when changes are committed.

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