meta_ads_catalogs_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is mutating, that it is not automatically reversible, that it returns catalog_id, and that before-state should be logged for rollback. It does not mention permission/scope requirements or rate limits on catalog creation, which is the remaining gap for a zero-annotation mutation tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value before the mutability warning and the routing hint. No sentence is redundant with another, and the ordering matches how an agent would read it (what it does → what it returns → risk → next tool).

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 7-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the key gaps: return shape (catalog_id), irreversibility, rollback logging, and the container-versus-products relationship. The only thing left implicit is permission/auth requirements and whether name uniqueness is enforced by the API, which the schema partially covers via the 'unique within the Business' note.

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 business_id, name, account_id, reason, approval, expected, and decision_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies even though the narrative helpfully implies a business_id is required.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Creates a new Product Catalog under a Meta Business'), plus stated return value (catalog_id). It also positions the resource against its siblings (products_add, feeds_create), so an agent can tell it apart from meta_ads_products_add or meta_ads_feeds_create without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: catalogs are the container, so adding products goes through meta_ads_products_add and bulk imports through meta_ads_feeds_create. It also names the rollback path (mureo_state_action_log_append) with a condition ('if you may need to roll back'), so both the when-to-use and the alternative are stated.

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