Update ad group

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/open-world/safety profile; the description adds substantial behavior the agent cannot get elsewhere: partial-update semantics, the whole-object targeting replacement rule, the ARCHIVED-first + three-hour deletion constraint, and micro-currency units. This is exactly the kind of context that prevents mis-invocation.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and then packs high-value constraints into a short block with no filler. Dense but each sentence earns its place; the currency and deletion clauses are non-obvious and worth the space.

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?

For a 2-parameter mutation tool with a nested data object and no output schema, the description covers update semantics, deletion workflow, targeting replacement, and currency. It omits return/auth details, but with no output schema and existing annotations those are minor gaps.

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 50%, but the description meaningfully supplements it: 'pass only the fields to change' clarifies partial-update behavior, targeting is replaced wholesale, and money values are micro-currency. These semantics go beyond the raw field list in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an ad group'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like reddit_ads_update_campaign, reddit_ads_update_ad, and reddit_ads_update_ad_account. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource makes the target unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: 'Pass only the fields to change,' and how to delete via configured_status=DELETED. It explains the archive-then-delete prerequisite, which is real when-to-use context. It does not explicitly contrast usage with sibling update tools, keeping it just below a 5.

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