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 it is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds no further behavioral context—such as whether status changes are immediately effective, whether swapping creative impacts delivery, or any permission requirements. Beyond the basic mutation nature, there is no added transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the main action and the key editable fields. It is concise with no filler or redundant information, earning full credit for efficiency.

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 update tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lists the changeable fields and the action, and the schema covers required ad_id and enum values. However, it lacks any mention of response behavior (e.g., returns updated object or just success) or whether updates are partial (only provided fields changed). Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description mentions changing name, status, or creative, which aligns with the schema properties but adds no extra meaning beyond what is already present. It does not clarify edge cases like whether status enum includes DELETED or if creative_id must reference an existing creative. 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Update an existing ad' with specific editable fields ('name, status, or swap creative'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_campaign and update_adset by specifying the resource ('existing ad') and action.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need to modify an ad), but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or mention exclusions. For example, it does not say 'use delete_ad to remove an ad' or clarify that this only affects the ad, not its creatives or targeting. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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