get_creative_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the access requirement for video, the inline/file/both output behavior, size limits of 5 MiB for images and 100 MiB for videos, that files live on the MCP server rather than hosted URLs, that rendering depends on the client, and that downloads only write local files and never Ads data.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds operational constraints without much wasted text. It is somewhat dense and packs many caveats into a single paragraph, but those details are relevant for correct invocation.

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 media-download tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the important behavioral context: mode selection, output modes, limits, local-file implications, and access requirements. It is only slightly incomplete in that ad_account_id semantics are not addressed.

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 all parameter meaning. It explains kind and output well, including defaults, but it does not explain id or ad_account_id beyond the schema patterns, leaving two of the four parameters semantically undocumented.

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 and resource: it downloads a creative's image/video thumbnail or full MP4, and it distinguishes the two modes via kind=preview and kind=video. An agent can immediately tell this is a media-download tool rather than a metadata-listing tool like list_creatives or get_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?

It gives clear conditions for the two modes (preview vs video) and notes that kind=video requires Posts and Videos API access. It also explains the output choices and defaults, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as get_creative or get_share_content.

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