update_creative

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

The description only says 'Update an existing image creative,' which is the operation itself. With no annotations provided, it does not disclose whether it performs a partial or full update, what happens if the creative ID does not exist, or whether changes affect live campaigns. This is insufficient behavioral transparency for a mutation 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 statement that immediately conveys the tool's function. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 three-parameter update tool, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and operation. However, it lacks contextual guidance on how to obtain the creative ID, whether name and description are both updatable in one call, or how this differs from related replace_* operations. Given the simple nature, this is acceptable but leaves some gaps.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions (Creative ID, name, description), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 tool updates an existing image creative, specifying both the action (update) and the resource type (image creative). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_rich_media_creative or update_video_creative, which handle other creative types, and from create_creative/delete_creative.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: for updating an existing image creative. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'image creative' qualifier and the 'existing' phrasing adequately guide selection among the many update_*_creative options. It could be improved by naming alternatives like create_creative or replace_image_creative_file for other scenarios.

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