update_ad

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

The description explicitly discloses behavioral traits: supervised write, pre-write snapshot, validation, post-write verification, and the creative swap behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden, and it does so well.

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 and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details, and ending with parameter descriptions. It is slightly verbose but not overly so; every sentence adds value.

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 an ad via Meta API, the description covers key aspects: validation, rollback, and parameter nuances. It does not specify return values or error conditions, but with no output schema, this is acceptable. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning via an 'Args' section. It explains ad_id, name (naming enforcement), status (allowed values and activation nuance), and creative_id (requires existing creative, numeric format). This goes far beyond the bare schema.

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 'Update an existing ad,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_ad_creative by focusing on the ad entity itself. The parameter descriptions further clarify the tool's scope.

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 provides implicit guidance, such as the creative_id note explaining it re-points rather than creates a creative. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use comparisons with sibling tools like update_ad_creative or create_multi_asset_ad.

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