draft_update_native_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 states the operation (update) without revealing whether it performs a partial update, replaces the entire draft, requires specific permissions, or what happens if the id does not exist. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 simple update tool with a schema that documents both parameters, the description is minimally complete. However, the lack of an output schema, no annotation guidance, and no explanation of behavior on partial updates or valid native ad item fields means the agent must infer important details from elsewhere. It is adequate but not rich enough for confident invocation in ambiguous scenarios.

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 schema description covers 100% of parameters (id and draft), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it also does not introduce confusion. The nested 'draft' property is described as containing fields to update, which gives minimal useful meaning.

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 native ad item' uses a specific verb (Update) and clear resource (draft native ad item), accurately reflecting the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like draft_create_native_ad_item and draft_delete_native_ad_item, and 'draft' differentiates it from the non-draft update_native_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draft_create_native_ad_item (for new items) or update_native_ad_item (for non-draft items). The description lacks any contextual direction for an agent to choose this tool correctly.

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