update_rich_media_creative

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 simply states 'Update an existing rich media creative' and provides no details about whether updates are partial or full replacement, whether permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains. This is a meaningful transparency gap 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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Update') and resource ('existing rich media creative'). There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with only three parameters.

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 is simple, the schema covers all parameters, and there is no output schema. However, the description is too sparse for a mutation operation with no annotations: it does not explain return value, partial update semantics, or side effects. It is adequate but leaves clear 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 fully describes all three parameters (id, name, description) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies: the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description neither helps nor hurts.

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 ('Update') with a clear resource ('existing rich media creative'), and it distinguishes this tool from its siblings such as create_rich_media_creative, get_rich_media_creative, and delete_rich_media_creative. The word 'existing' reinforces that this is not a create operation.

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 implies usage: it updates a rich media creative that already exists, so it should be used after creation. However, it gives no explicit exclusions or alternatives, and it does not mention when to choose this over similar update tools like replace_rich_media_creative_file or vast42_update_creative.

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