update_ad_creative

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It effectively communicates the immutability of creative content beyond the name. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like ad re-approval or other API behaviors, though the scope is simple.

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, consisting of two short paragraphs. The important warning is placed prominently, and every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple function (rename an ad creative), the description covers the core functionality, limitations, and alternative workflow. No output schema is needed as the return value is likely straightforward (e.g., success).

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'creative_id' as the ID to update and 'name' as the new name. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states that the tool updates an existing ad creative's name. It specifies the verb 'update', the resource 'ad creative', and the specific field 'name', distinguishing it from siblings that may create or modify other aspects.

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 explicitly warns that Meta API does not allow changing creative content (copy, headline, CTA, link URL) after creation. It provides a clear alternative workflow: create a new creative and swap it on the ad. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when to use alternatives.

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