vast_create_ad_item

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 states a create operation, with no information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what the response contains. This is a significant 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, concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to read, though it offers minimal content. It earns a score of 4 for efficiency.

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 create operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about return values, required permissions, or operational context (e.g., whether 'location' is a URL or file). While the schema covers parameters, the overall description is insufficient to fully understand the tool's behavior in context.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (name, active, location), so the schema already documents the fields. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (create) and resource (VAST ad item), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it essentially restates the tool name without adding additional specificity, such as the required fields or typical use case. Therefore, it is clear but not differentiating beyond the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other vast_* siblings (e.g., vast_update_ad_item, vast_create_placement). There is no mention of prerequisites, compatibility, or alternative approaches, so the agent is left without context for tool selection.

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