Update an existing Meta ad set by changing only the fields you specify, such as name, status, targeting, or budgets.
Update an existing ad set. Only provided fields will be updated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name | |
| status | No | New status | |
| adSetId | Yes | Ad set ID to update | |
| targeting | No | Updated targeting configuration | |
| dailyBudget | No | New daily budget in cents | |
| lifetimeBudget | No | New lifetime budget in cents |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key trait that only provided fields are updated, implying a partial update (PATCH-like). However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as permissions required, atomicity, or return format. This is a minimal but non-contradictory disclosure.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the partial-update note is appended efficiently. It is an exemplar of concise, structured communication.
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 tool with 6 parameters, including a nested targeting object, the description is minimal but not incomplete. The schema covers parameter details, and the description adds the core behavior. However, it lacks usage context and does not mention return values (no output schema), so it is adequate but not richly complete.
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?
The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, describing each field individually. The description adds crucial semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that only provided fields are updated, which defines how the optional parameters behave. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter interactions.
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 verb 'Update' and resource 'existing ad set', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from status-specific siblings like pauseAdSet and activateAdSet, though it does not explicitly contrast them. The name itself is self-explanatory, reinforcing clarity.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that dedicated tools exist for status changes (pause/activate) or that this tool is for general field updates. An agent would have to infer the appropriate usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.