amazon ads get creative asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the result includes every version and its files, URLs are never guessed, and there is no cross-profile fallback — i.e. what the agent will and won't get back.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the sibling routing and constraints following. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 two-parameter, fully documented, read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the remaining pieces an agent needs: where the ID comes from, what the response contains, and how missing data is handled. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% with patterns and descriptions for both accountId and assetId, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance meaning the schema lacks — that assetId must be a native asset library ID sourced from the list tool — which materially reduces the chance of an invented ID.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Refresh one native Amazon image or video asset in the selected profile') and explicitly separates itself from the listing sibling by pointing at amazon_ads_list_creative_assets. An agent can distinguish it from the ~30 sibling getter tools without opening the schema.

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 tells the agent exactly where the required assetId must come from ('Pass its native assetId from amazon_ads_list_creative_assets'), which routes usage correctly. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions (e.g. don't use this to enumerate assets or to cross profiles), but the profile scoping constraint is clearly implied by 'in the selected profile' and 'no cross-profile fallback'.

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