update_advertiser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update an existing advertiser' without describing merge semantics, required ID, validation side effects, or return value. This is essentially a restatement of the tool name and provides no meaningful transparency beyond the fact of mutation.

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 short sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is arguably too sparse to fully support agent use. Still, as a concise statement of purpose it earns a high score.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely underspecified. It doesn't indicate partial vs. full update, required identifier, side effects, constraints, or return value, leaving the agent without sufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

All seven parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (advertiser), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create_advertiser. However, it doesn't mention the scope or which fields can be updated, so it stops short of the explicit sibling differentiation seen in top-tier examples.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_advertiser, archive_advertiser, or other advertiser operations. The sentence merely restates the basic purpose with no context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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