deconstruct_ad

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It mentions idempotence, server-side execution, and that results are retrieved via get_ad_deconstruction. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., creating a stored breakdown) or potential failure modes, but the idempotency hint covers reuse. Slightly more detail on what 'deconstruct' entails would improve transparency.

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?

Description is compact but includes all key information: purpose, idempotence, and usage context. The 'busywork' phrasing is slightly informal but adds no fluff. Sentences are purposeful and front-loaded with the main action.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential usage: what it does, when to use it, and how to retrieve results. It also clarifies the boundary with sibling tools. Minor gaps: no mention of potential errors or rate limits, but these are not critical for this simple command.

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 covers asset_id with 100% description, and the tool description adds context about asset types (watched competitor, ad-library, TikTok, swipe-file) but this largely duplicates the schema's own description. No additional syntax or format guidance is provided, so it hovers at the baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (deconstruct) and resource (public ads: competitor, ad-library, TikTok, swipe-file) and specifies the server-side actions (scene-split, transcribe, structural analysis). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ad_deconstruction (for reading) and get_shot_deconstruction (for own footage).

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the marketer says break this down') and provides a clear exclusion: 'For the marketer's OWN footage, use get_shot_analysis.' It also instructs to read results via get_ad_deconstruction, giving a complete usage flow.

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