ads_interest_research_post_upsert

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses the key behavioral fact: this is local-only storage with no outbound publishing or contacting, and the record is 'bounded' (one post). It stops short of explaining upsert conflict behavior — what identifies an existing post, what fields get overwritten on a re-store, 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?

Two short sentences: purpose first, safety constraint second. Nothing is redundant and the most important caveat is front-loaded.

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 16-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits required-field expectations, the upsert identity semantics, and any indication of the response. It covers intent and safety, but not enough for reliable invocation.

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 16 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — the four required fields (channel, external_post_id, post_url, author_external_user_id) and the identifier semantics of the upsert key are never mentioned. Names alone carry the load for fields like signal_type, relevance_score, and metadata.

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 and resource: store one bounded public research post linked to an interest contact. It is distinguishable from ads_interest_research_post_list, but the name says 'upsert' while the description says 'Store one', leaving the insert-vs-update identity key (presumably channel + external_post_id) unexplained.

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 statement of when to call this versus ads_interest_contact_upsert or when to list vs record. The only boundary given is an effect boundary ('never publishes or contacts anyone'), which is about safety, not about tool selection.

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