create_ad_video_creative

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the creative uses an existing video_id and constructs an object_story_spec with link_data and video_data, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or whether the video must be owned by the same ad account. This is partial behavioral disclosure.

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: the first is clear and front-loaded; the second is a technical detail in Dutch that adds some value but is unnecessarily cryptic. Overall efficient but could be improved.

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 9 parameters, 6 required, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits required parameters like name, page_id, primary_text, and headline, and doesn't explain the output schema (though an output schema exists, the description doesn't clarify return values). Significant gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 9 undocumented parameters. The description only mentions video_id and implies link_url and call_to_action via 'link_data (landing URL + CTA)', but doesn't explain the other parameters. Most parameter semantics are missing.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Create a link ad creative that uses a previously uploaded video (video_id).' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_ad_creative and create_asset_feed_ad_creative by specifying it is video-based with link_data. However, the second sentence is in Dutch and unclear to most agents, slightly reducing cross-lingual clarity.

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 implies usage by saying 'uses a previously uploaded video', which suggests you should call upload_ad_video first. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_ad_creative or create_asset_feed_ad_creative, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not fully guided.

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