bulk_rename_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is atomic, what happens if some renames fail, or any side effects. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or return values.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second lists the argument format. No filler or redundant information.

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 bulk operation with a complex input and no output schema, the description lacks essential details like error behavior, atomicity, and return format. It only explains the input, leaving gaps in understanding the full context of use.

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 only defines 'renames_json' as a string with no description, but the description provides the JSON array structure: object_id, new_name, object_type with enumerated values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it does not describe error handling or validation.

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 tool renames multiple Meta Ads objects in one call. It specifies the action (rename), the resource (Meta Ads objects), and the scope (multiple). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_ad or update_campaign which handle single objects.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., update_ad for individual renames) or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as required permissions or prior object existence.

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