Update Ad

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

Annotations already convey the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent), and the description does not add meaningful behavioral details beyond restating the update action and a vague 'Returns: Updated ad details'. It does not disclose partial vs full replacement semantics, side effects, or what happens to omitted fields, so transparency is limted.

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 structurally organized and front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence. However, the extensive Args block largely duplicates what the input schema already provides, which reduces the value of the description and makes it less concise than it could be.

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?

With a rich schema and helpful annotations, the definition is mostly functional for basic use. However, there is no output schema and the return description is vague ('Updated ad details'), and the description leaves update semantics (partial vs full replacement) unclear. This is a noticeable gap for a complex update operation.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description's Args section mostly repeats schema content without adding new meaning, such as format constraints, default behavior, or relationships between parameters. Therefore a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific operation ('Update an existing ad's content and settings') with a clear resource. It is distinguishable from create/get tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling newsbreak_update_ad_status, which is a closely related update operation.

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 phrase 'existing ad' implies the tool is for updating already-created ads, which gives some usage context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over newsbreak_update_ad_status, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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