create_ad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the creation action and a specific failure case (dynamic creative error) but omits details like permission requirements, side effects (e.g., ad status transitions), or success response format (though an output schema exists). The description provides some transparency but lacks completeness 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 concise with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by a well-structured parameter list and a relevant note. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 4 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers parameter details but lacks overarching context. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_adset or update_ad, nor does it mention typical preconditions (e.g., adset must be in draft status). The dynamic creative note is useful but insufficient for full contextual completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well. It explains the format of account_id (act_XXXXXXXXX), default status, and optional bid_amount. It provides a concrete example for tracking_specs and notes access_token optionality. However, some parameters like name and adset_id lack additional explanation, but their names are self-evident.

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 'Create a new ad with an existing creative.' This clearly identifies the tool's action (create) and resource (ad) with a specific constraint (existing creative). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ad_creative (which creates the creative itself) and update_ad (modifies an existing 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?

The description lists parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a creative already exists). The note about dynamic creative provides a constraint but not a usage guideline. Minimal guidance on prerequisites or excluded scenarios.

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