create_ad_creative

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool creates something (implying mutation), it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description provides basic functional information but lacks critical operational context 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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. Each parameter explanation is concise and focused. While comprehensive, some explanations could be more streamlined (e.g., the repeated 'cannot be used with' phrasing). Overall, the structure supports readability with minimal wasted text.

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 (15 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides substantial context. It thoroughly documents parameters and their relationships. However, it lacks behavioral context about permissions, errors, and operational constraints that would be important for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 description provides extensive parameter documentation beyond the 0% schema coverage. It explains the purpose of each parameter, format requirements (e.g., 'act_XXXXXXXXX'), optionality, mutual exclusivity rules (headline/headlines, description/descriptions), and conditional requirements (lead_gen_form_id required with certain CTAs). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'new ad creative', specifying it uses 'an uploaded image hash'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_ad' (which creates ads) and 'update_ad_creative' (which updates existing creatives).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description mentions 'cannot be used with' constraints for headline/headlines and description/descriptions, these are parameter-level exclusions rather than tool-level usage guidelines. There's no mention of when to choose this over other creative-related tools like 'get_ad_creatives' or 'update_ad_creative'.

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