upload_ad_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important behavior: the safe default (dry_run=True) and the fact that a real upload requires both flags to be flipped. It also reveals the return value (image hash). It omits permissions/auth requirements, file constraints, and whether a failed gated call still touches the remote account.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the safety-gate instruction and return value following in priority order.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned image hash. For a 3-parameter tool the safety gates, defaults, and return value are all covered; only input-file constraints and auth expectations are absent.

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 meaningfully explains dry_run and confirm, including how they interact to gate the upload, but says nothing about image_path semantics (format, relative vs absolute, existence checks) beyond what the bare schema shows.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload an image to the configured Meta ad account') and immediately clarifies the outcome (an image hash usable in ad creatives). It is trivially distinguishable from every sibling, which are all campaign/ad-set/insight management tools.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context by stating the artifact is for use in ad creatives, and spells out the activation condition for a real upload (dry_run=False and confirm=True). It does not mention that only non-dry-run calls mutate remote state or reference any alternative tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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