meta_ads_creatives_create_dynamic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation is 'Mutating — not automatically reversible' and advises recording before-state with mureo_state_action_log_append. It also mentions the return value (new creative id) and that Meta combines assets at serve time. While it doesn't cover permissions or errors, it discloses the critical mutation and persistence behavior sufficiently.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by risk/rollback guidance and explicit alternatives. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 (9 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential context: purpose, usage scenarios, alternatives, constraints, mutability, and return value. The parameter details are thoroughly documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them, making it complete and well-rounded.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying recommended ranges ('Supply 2–10 images, 1–5 of each text field') and explaining the rationale ('Meta combines them at serve time'), which complements the schema's min/max constraints with real-world guidance.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Creates a Dynamic Creative' and explains the distinctive behavior (Meta auto-generates and optimises combinations). It also differentiates from sibling tools by naming meta_ads_creatives_create and meta_ads_creatives_create_carousel, specifying exactly when each should be used.

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 usage guidance: 'Use when you want Meta to learn the best-performing asset mix rather than testing manually' and explicitly recommends alternatives for static single-image ads and carousels. This goes beyond vague context and gives actionable when/when-not guidance.

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