meta_ads_products_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the operation is mutating, not automatically reversible, and suggests logging before-state with mureo_state_action_log_append for rollback. It also reveals rate limits and the non-obvious retailer_id upsert behavior, which is far more than a generic 'Creates' statement.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: the first states purpose and return value, the second provides mutability/rollback guidance, and the third presents bulk alternative and upsert caveat. No redundant or filler content.

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?

With 12 parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description fills the critical contextual gaps: it states the return value (new product_id), warns about rate limiting, explains the upsert semantics, and suggests rollback tracking. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and each parameter already has rich descriptions (e.g., retailer_id's upsert behavior, price format, availability enums). The tool-level description adds operational context but does not introduce new per-parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Adds a single product to a Meta Product Catalog.' It also mentions the return value ('Returns the new product_id'), which clarifies the operation's outcome. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_ads_products_update, meta_ads_products_delete, and meta_ads_products_list.

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 recommends an alternative for bulk ingestion: 'prefer a scheduled feed (meta_ads_feeds_create) — Meta rate-limits single-product adds aggressively.' It also explains the upsert behavior for retailer_id, guiding when a subsequent add might unexpectedly update instead of insert.

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