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 of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation is mutating and reversible via rollback_apply (conditional on no ads consuming the catalog). It also mentions the return value. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or the fact that the catalog name must be unique (though the schema covers uniqueness). The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and return value. The second sentence adds behavioral context (mutating, reversible) and links to related tools. Every word contributes value; there is no redundant or filler content. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers creation, return, reversibility, and relationships to product and feed tools. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a valid Meta Business ID) or potential errors (e.g., duplicate names), but the schema covers uniqueness and the business_id is required. The description is mostly complete for a simple creation 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (account_id format/fallback, business_id owner, name uniqueness). The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, the description adds no extra value for parameter understanding, placing it at the baseline score of 3.

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 that the tool creates a new Product Catalog under a Meta Business and returns the catalog_id. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like meta_ads_catalogs_list and meta_ads_catalogs_delete by positioning it as the creation entry point, and it contrasts with product addition tools (meta_ads_products_add, meta_ads_feeds_create) by noting that catalogs are containers. The verb+resource+scope (create Product Catalog under Meta Business) is specific and 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?

The description provides guidance on when to use this tool: to create a catalog before adding products individually or via feeds. It also mentions reversibility via rollback_apply. However, it does not explicitly instruct the agent to check for existing catalogs using meta_ads_catalogs_list before creation, nor does it warn against using this tool when a catalog already exists. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.

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