create_partner_data_upload

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 usefully reveals the asynchronous creation pattern (returns an upload id for polling), but does not disclose side effects, whether processing begins immediately, failure modes, or permission requirements. It adds one meaningful behavioral trait while leaving several 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?

Two sentences, roughly 23 words, with the verb and resource front-loaded. Sentence one states the purpose; sentence two discloses the return value and the follow-up polling workflow. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return value but omits prerequisites and parameter selection logic. The schema lists all parameters as optional, yet a real call requires at least some of them; the description does not clarify which combinations are valid or that file_id likely references a file uploaded via a sibling 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?

Schema description coverage is 67% with ad_account_id completely undocumented, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning whatsoever. It does not explain how file_id, upload_type, and ad_account_id relate to each other, nor which combinations are valid. Given the partial coverage gap, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter but fails to.

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 ('Create an Ads partner-data upload') and clarifies the partner-integration context. The polling reference to get_partner_data_upload anchors the tool in a recognizable workflow, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from adjacent upload operations like upload_image or upload_audience_file.

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?

Usage context is implied through the parenthetical '(for partner integrations)' and the follow-up workflow hint 'Returns upload id for polling via get_partner_data_upload'. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of the likely prerequisite that a file must first be uploaded via a sibling tool.

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