update_zone_ortb_native_ad

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 'update', which implies mutation, but does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, what happens to omitted fields, required permissions, or the return format. This is insufficient 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, front-loaded sentence: 'Update an existing ORTB native ad for a standard zone.' Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 a simple CRUD update with a fully documented schema, but it lacks an output schema and annotations. The description does not clarify return value, update semantics (partial vs full), or what 'standard zone' means relative to other zone types, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — each parameter (id, name, zone_id, template_id) has a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Update'), the resource ('an existing ORTB native ad'), and the scope ('for a standard zone'). It distinguishes the tool from its siblings (create_zone_ortb_native_ad, delete_zone_ortb_native_ad, etc.) by specifying 'update' and 'existing'.

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 for modifying an existing ORTB native ad, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete. There is no mention of prerequisites, partial vs full updates, or exclusions.

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