meta_ads_ad_sets_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is mutating and not automatically reversible, advises logging for rollback, and clarifies the default initial status (PAUSED) and when ACTIVE is allowed. This goes beyond the schema and informs the agent of important behavioral traits.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value, followed by the mutation warning, targeting requirement, status default, and next step. Each sentence contributes distinct, useful information with 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?

For a complex tool with 12 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides a complete high-level picture: creates an ad set in an existing campaign, requires key targeting fields, default status behavior, rollback guidance, and the follow-up step. It doesn't enumerate every parameter interaction, but the schema already does that, so the description fills the contextual gaps.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with rich descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra guidance by stating that targeting must include at least geo_locations and age bounds, and by explaining the default status behavior. This is sufficient to elevate the score above the schema-only 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 states a clear action with verb and resource: 'Creates a new ad set inside an existing campaign' and specifies the return value ('Returns the new ad_set id'). It differentiates from sibling tools like meta_ads_ad_sets_update and meta_ads_ads_create by focusing on creation and noting the follow-up to attach ads with meta_ads_ads_create.

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 gives clear workflow context: when creating an ad set in an existing campaign, default status is PAUSED, and then attach ads with meta_ads_ads_create. It also advises recording before-state with mureo_state_action_log_append for rollback. However, it does not explicitly contrast with meta_ads_ad_sets_update or list when-not conditions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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