update_creative

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that only name and url_tags are modifiable, which is a key behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, immutability of other fields in practice, or what happens when attempting to modify unmodifiable fields, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 just two sentences and contains no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds a critical constraint. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema or nested objects, the description adequately covers the core operation and its limitations. It does not explain return values or error semantics, but given the low complexity and existing schema, this is not a significant gap. It fully supports correct tool selection among many siblings.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description reinforces that only name and url_tags are updatable, which aligns with the schema but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the exact verb 'Update', the resource 'existing ad creative', and the critical constraint that 'only name and url_tags can be modified'. This clearly distinguishes it from create_creative and update_ad, which target different resources or operations.

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 phrase 'after creation' implies when this tool is appropriate (updating an existing creative) and the restriction 'only name and url_tags' tells the agent what can be changed, preventing misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_creative for initial creation or update_ad for ads, so it lacks an explicit when-not statement.

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