update_ad

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 does disclose the important partial-update behavior: 'Only provided fields are updated.' However, it does not mention permissions, validation side effects, reversibility, or what happens when ad_account_id is changed, which leaves meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a critical semantic detail about partial updates. It is appropriately concise for a simple update operation.

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?

The tool has six parameters, a nested creative object, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the basic update action and partial-update behavior. It omits parameter semantics, usage guidance against status-specific siblings, and any behavioral context for a mutation operation. The description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent to invoke this 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 only 17%, with ad_id being the only documented parameter. The description adds no semantic detail beyond 'by ID' and 'only provided fields,' so it does not compensate for the heavily undocumented schema. Parameters like creative, description, status, and ad_account_id have almost no explanatory context.

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 ('Update'), a specific resource ('an ad'), and the addressing mechanism ('by ID'). The phrase 'Only provided fields are updated' clarifies that this is a partial update, which clearly distinguishes it from create_ad and from status-specific tools like activate_ad, pause_ad, and archive_ad.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives. In particular, the tool can update the status field, but the description does not explain how this should be chosen over activate_ad, pause_ad, or archive_ad for status changes. The context is implied by the resource type but not explicitly stated.

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