updateAd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates an ad, but not whether status changes are immediate, whether bid changes affect running delivery, whether the operation is idempotent, or what permissions are required. The use of 'or' is also ambiguous about whether both status and bidAmount can be updated together.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is economical and immediately communicates the tool's core action, though the 'or' phrasing introduces a slight ambiguity.

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 simple three-parameter update tool with a fully documented schema, the one-line description plus schema is enough to construct a valid call. However, with many sibling tools and no annotations or output schema, the description lacks routing guidance and does not fully explain behavioral expectations.

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%, with adId, status enum, and bidAmount in cents already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 the operation ('Update'), the resource ('an existing ad'), and the specific fields involved ('status or bid amount'). It is distinguishable from siblings like updateAdSet and updateCampaign by naming the ad resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as pauseCampaign, activateCampaign, updateAdSet, or pauseAdSet. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned.

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