ads_project_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses very little: it does not say whether creation is persistent, whether the name must be unique, what happens if an 'id' is supplied by the caller, what 'status' defaults to, or whether 'metadata' accepts arbitrary values. Only the fact of mutation is implied by 'Create'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding and no repetition of the tool name. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, the description should at minimum cover required fields, uniqueness/duplication behavior, and the effect of caller-supplied 'id' or 'status'. None of that is present.

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 five parameters, including a nested free-form 'metadata' object, an enum 'status', and a caller-suppliable 'id' — all undocumented. The description mentions none of them, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap beyond hinting that 'name' describes the project.

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 and resource ('Create a project') and clarifies the entity's role as a container for related advertising campaigns and analytics, which distinguishes it conceptually from ads_campaign_create. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (ads_project_get/list/update) or stating scope explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to create a project versus when to read or update one (ads_project_get, ads_project_list, ads_project_update), and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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