upload_ad_image

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

The description discloses the process (downloads image from URL, multipart upload), limitations (max 30MB, supported formats), and output (image hash). No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does not mention authorization or error conditions, but for a simple upload tool, this is adequate.

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 well-structured with a clear header, bullet points for formats and size, and a detailed Args section. Each sentence is informative and no unnecessary text.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (image hash) and its use in creative creation. It also specifies the account_id format and optional parameters. The tool has three simple parameters, and the description covers all essential aspects for an agent to use it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides details for all parameters: account_id format (e.g., 'act_123456789'), image_url as a public URL, and name as optional with default behavior (filename from URL). This adds significant value beyond the plain 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 it uploads an image from a URL into Meta ad images library and returns the image hash needed for ad creative creation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_ad_creative and create_multi_asset_ad by specifying the output and context.

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 explains when to use this tool (to upload an image for ad creative) and provides constraints (supported formats: JPG, PNG; max size: 30MB). It could be improved by explicitly mentioning when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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