replace_audio_creative_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It only says 'Replace' without disclosing how the file is supplied (no file parameter in schema), whether the operation is reversible, what happens to the old file, or any permission requirements. This is a significant transparency 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, concise sentence with no redundant phrases. It is front-loaded and efficient, containing only the essential verb and resource. This is ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the file replacement is executed (given only an id), what response to expect, or any side effects/prerequisites. Significant contextual information is missing.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'id' as 'Creative ID', covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('audio creative'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling replacement tools (e.g., replace_video_creative_file, replace_image_creative_file). However, 'the file' is slightly vague—it could specify 'audio file' for complete clarity.

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 replace_video_creative_file or update_audio_creative. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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