ads_client_profile_message_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the single most important behavioral fact: this is an append-only history write that 'never sends a message.' It does not cover other traits an agent would want for a 7-parameter mutation — whether appends are idempotent, whether the profile must already exist, how telegram_message_id is used for dedupe, or what is returned.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the safety constraint anchors the end. Every sentence adds information the agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the write-only safety profile, and one parameter's usage rule. It is not complete enough to cover the semantics of the remaining parameters, error behavior (missing profile, oversized text at maxLength 20000), or what the call returns.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it explains the direction values in prose and gives real semantic guidance for contact_account_id (when to supply it and why). profile_id, text, sent_at, telegram_message_id and the nested metadata object are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (append) plus the resource (a note/history entry on a local client profile) and enumerates the three note directions. The closing clause 'stores history only and never sends a message' separates it from send-oriented siblings such as ads_client_profile_batch_send and ads_telegram_account_send without the agent needing to open another schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance for contact_account_id ('for external or multi-account contacts, pass contact_account_id so the exact account is recorded') and makes clear the tool is for recording, not delivering. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use when the agent actually wants to send, leaving that routing to inference.

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