replace_audience_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral traits: destructive full replacement, use of current revision (concurrency check), idempotency requirement, and an asynchronous flow requiring polling. It does not cover failure modes or response format, but the critical behaviors are present.

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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and every clause adds distinct information: the operation, the mechanism, the idempotency requirement, and the follow-up polling step.

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 10-parameter asynchronous mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow but omits the purpose of several optional parameters and what a successful poll should return. It is minimally viable but not fully self-contained.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies file_id and expected_revision via 'uploaded file and current revision' and idempotency_key via 'Requires Idempotency-Key.' However, it does not explain filename, mimetype, identifier_type, ad_account_id, or other optional fields, leaving a significant parameter gap.

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 names the exact operation: 'Replace all members of a custom audience using an uploaded file and current revision.' This is a specific verb+resource that clearly differentiates it from add/remove and other audience operations in the sibling 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?

It provides strong usage context: full replacement requires an Idempotency-Key and expected_rvision, and directs the agent to poll via get_audience_operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives like add_audience_members or remove_audience_members, but the 'replace all' wording makes the intended scenario unambiguous.

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