meta_ads_ad_rules_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is mutating and not automatically reversible, advises recording before-state for rollback, and explains the evaluation/firing behavior. This is thorough for a create operation.

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 concise (four sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence provides essential information: what it does, return value, mutation warning/rollback guidance, common patterns, and a pointer to documentation. No redundancy.

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?

The tool is complex with nested objects and no output schema, but the description, combined with the detailed input schema, covers the essential aspects: creation behavior, return value, mutation implications, and high-level usage patterns. It omits some details about rule construction, but appropriately defers to Meta docs, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining that evaluation_spec and execution_spec follow Meta's JSON schemas, pointing to external docs, and providing concrete execution types via common patterns. This enhances understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 it creates a new Automated Rule, specifies the resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools (update/list/get/delete). It also mentions the return value (rule_id) and common patterns, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 concrete usage patterns (CPA-spike alert, auto-pause, scale winners) which helps in deciding when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update or delete, though the name implies creation. No exclusions are mentioned.

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