create_carousel_ad_creative

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the creation and return value (creative_id or Meta error), and documents defaults for multi_share_end_card and multi_share_optimized. However, it omits any mention of permission requirements, access_token handling, or the irreversible/persistent nature of the write operation beyond implied creation. This is a notable 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 well-organized with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, front-loads the tool's purpose, and uses a compact code block for the nested child_attachments. Every line adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity. No fluff or redundancy.

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 complex with nested structures and multiple optional parameters, and the description covers most of it, including return integration with create_ad and reference to upload_ad_image for image_hash. Missing access_token explanation and lack of error detail prevent a 5, but the description is largely sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed, meaningful explanations for 9 of 10 parameters, including a full breakdown of child_attachments structure with examples. Only access_token is not discussed, but the description still far exceeds baseline by adding operational meaning that the schema entirely lacks.

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 starts with 'Crea un ad creative tipo CARRUSEL (2-10 tarjetas deslizables)', clearly specifying a carousel ad creative with a range of cards. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_ad_creative, which is likely for single-format creatives. The verb 'Crea' and resource 'ad creative' are explicit.

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: it is for carousel ads with 2-10 cards, and explicitly instructs to use the returned creative_id 'luego en create_ad'. It does not contrast with alternative tools like create_ad_creative, but the name and scope make the intended use obvious. No exclusions or when-not conditions are stated.

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