meta_ads_ad_sets_update

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses partial update semantics, returns the updated ad set, warns that the operation is 'not automatically reversible' and advises recording before-state, and explains the targeting read-modify-write merge behavior and the replace flag. This is rich, actionable context beyond a basic summary.

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 dense but efficient, front-loaded with the core purpose (updates an ad set, partial update) followed by key behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds value: the merge behavior, the replace flag, and the sibling tool pointer are all meaningful. No fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 13-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema or annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the critical edge cases (partial update, rollback, targeting merge, end_time clearing, budget interactions) that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. Combined with the exhaustive schema, the agent has all necessary context.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter in detail. The description adds high-level guidance about targeting merge behavior and bidirectional relationships (e.g., when to use bid_amount), but most per-parameter semantics are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat schema details.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Updates one or more settings on an existing ad set' and distinguishes it from siblings by noting 'For status-only transitions prefer meta_ads_ad_sets_pause / meta_ads_ad_sets_enable.' It also explains the partial-update behavior, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including the alternative pause/enable tools for status-only changes and when to use replace_targeting ('to replace the whole spec instead (e.g. to clear a facet)'). Also warns about mutability and rollback, giving clear context for safe usage.

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