Update Ad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation that is not destructive in the deletion sense. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether setting status to PAUSED stops delivery or ARCHIVED permanently removes the ad from rotation. It merely restates the allowed enum values, which are already defined in the input schema. Thus, it adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise — a single clear verb phrase followed by a compact parameter list. It front-loads the action and avoids extraneous text, making it efficient for an agent to parse and act upon.

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?

This is a simple update tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers the core action and three of the parameters, but it omits the response_format parameter and does not address potential ambiguity around whether name and status are mutually exclusive or if at least one is required. The schema fills some gaps, but the description leaves room for misuse or confusion.

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 25% (only response_format has a description). The tool description lists ad_id, name, and status, providing some meaning (e.g., 'New name', allowed status values), but it omits response_format entirely. It also does not clarify whether at least one of name or status must be provided, or if both can be updated together. The schema's enum and response_format description partially compensate, but the description does not fully address the low coverage.

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 ('updates') and a resource ('an existing ad'), and it names the editable fields ('status or name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_create_ad (creates) and meta_update_adset (updates an ad set).

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 clear context that this tool is for updating an existing ad's status or name, but it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use meta_create_ad to create a new ad'). It also does not state any preconditions beyond having an existing ad_id, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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