meta_ads_catalogs_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does so effectively: 'Mutating — not automatically reversible; record before-state with mureo_state_action_log_append if you may need to roll back.' It also states the return value ('Returns the new catalog_id'), providing important behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, return value, mutation warning, and follow-up tool guidance. There is zero fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, the mutation risk with a rollback strategy, and how to proceed after creation (adding products or creating feeds). This is everything an agent needs to confidently invoke and integrate this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. It indirectly references business_id ('under a Meta Business') but provides no extra parameter-level detail.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Creates a new Product Catalog under a Meta Business.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that a catalog is the container and that products are added via meta_ads_products_add or meta_ads_feeds_create. This clearly identifies the tool's unique role.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to create a new catalog before adding products. It explicitly mentions alternatives for the next steps ('add products individually via meta_ads_products_add, or schedule bulk imports via meta_ads_feeds_create'). It does not explicitly state exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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