dynamic_creatives_update

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', implying mutation, but does not clarify whether updates are full replacements or partial, any permission requirements, or what happens to unmentioned fields. 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 very short and to the point, with no redundant information. It could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating English and Chinese), but remains appropriately sized for its purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of updating a dynamic creative (with nested objects and multiple fields) and no output schema, the description lacks details on the update semantics, error conditions, or return values. It is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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%, describing all parameters (account_id, creative_components, dynamic_creative_id). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score is 3; no extra value provided.

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 explicitly states 'Update dynamic creative', which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dynamic_creatives_get, dynamic_creatives_add, and dynamic_creatives_delete. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects are updated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dynamic_creatives_add or dynamic_creatives_delete). The description does not specify prerequisites, such as needing an existing creative to update, or contrast with other operations.

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