replace_rich_media_creative_file

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 'Replace' without explaining whether this is destructive, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to the old file, or how the new file is supplied. Given only an 'id' parameter, the mechanism for providing the replacement file 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 concise sentence with no redundant wording. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, especially given the lack of clarity about the file-supply mechanism, so it loses a point for not including essential context.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must explain enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It fails to explain how the new file is passed, what constraints exist, or what the response contains. An agent would be unable to correctly use this tool without additional information from documentation or examples.

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 provides 100% coverage with 'id' described as 'Creative ID', but the description adds no additional meaning. Notably, there is no parameter for the replacement file itself, which is confusing. The description should clarify how the new file is provided (e.g., via multipart upload or a URL), but it does not.

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 ('Replace') and the target resource ('the file on a rich media creative'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like replace_image_creative_file. However, it could be more specific about which file on the rich media creative is being replaced (e.g., the primary asset), leaving slight ambiguity.

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. There are many similar replace_*_file tools for different creative types (image, video, audio), but the description does not mention these alternatives or any prerequisites for use.

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