upload_ad_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that access_token is optional due to a cached token, describes the return format (image_hash and images list with CDN URL), and states that the URL can be fetched directly. It omits permissions, error conditions, or rate limits, but covers the key operational aspects beyond the tool's name.

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-structured with a one-sentence purpose, an Args list, and a Returns list. Every sentence provides essential information—no filler or redundancy. The length is appropriate for the number of parameters and return fields.

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 description is fully self-sufficient: it explains all parameters, return values, and how to use the result (e.g., with create_ad_creative or get_image_by_hash). The output schema is already present, and the description adds the necessary context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter in the Args section. It provides format examples (e.g., 'data:image/png;base64,...'), clarifies the relationship between file and image_url, and notes defaults for name. This goes well beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

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 states 'Upload an image to use in Meta Ads creatives' with a specific verb, resource, and intended purpose. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like upload_ad_video by focusing on images and their use in ad creatives.

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 explains what to do with the returned image_hash ('Pass this to create_ad_creative...') and notes that the CDN URL can be fetched directly, eliminating the need for immediate follow-up calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context effectively conveys when and how to use the tool.

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