meta_ads_audiences_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is mutating, reversible via rollback_apply (deletes audience), and details subtype-specific behaviors (e.g., auto-generated rule for WEBSITE, out-of-band customer list upload). It does not cover rate limits or authentication, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 tight paragraph of four sentences. It front-loads the action and return, then covers reversibility, subtype behavior, and alternative tool usage. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, subtype logic, integration with rollback and lookalike), the description adequately covers creation, return, reversibility, and subtype differentiators. It lacks error condition details, but the schema and surrounding context likely suffice for an agent to use it effectively.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The general description adds modest value by summarizing subtype logic, auto-generation of rules, and the out-of-band upload note. It mostly echoes schema detail but provides cohesive context, meeting 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 it creates a Custom Audience in Meta Ads and returns the audience_id. It differentiates from the sibling tool meta_ads_audiences_create_lookalike by noting the lookalike is for similarity-expanded reach, establishing a distinct purpose.

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 explains when to use this tool (create custom audiences) and provides context for subtypes (WEBSITE vs CUSTOM vs APP) with requirements. It suggests an alternative (lookalike) for expanded reach. However, it does not explicitly state contraindications (e.g., when not to use), but the subtype guidance and alternative mention provide sufficient direction.

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