create_inline_ad

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that this operation creates an ad and consolidates ad content and creative into a single call. This clearly signals a write operation and what is being created. No hidden behaviors or side effects are mentioned, but none are expected for a creation tool.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The primary action and distinguishing feature are front-loaded, followed by a clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and its key differentiator. It does not explicitly state prerequisites like an existing campaign, but those are implied by the required parameters. Overall, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all 12 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description summarizes that it creates 'ad content (text, image/video, landing page, CTA),' which maps to several parameters but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema definitions. It neither detracts nor adds significant value.

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 states a specific verb ('creates'), a resource ('new LinkedIn ad with inline content'), and distinguishes it from the alternative of using a pre-existing post. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose as creating sponsored content ads from scratch, which differentiates it from siblings like create_creative.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to create sponsored content ads from scratch.' It also implies the alternative by saying 'without needing a pre-existing post,' which signals that a different tool should be used when a post already exists. It does not name the specific sibling tool, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to make the correct choice.

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