update_ad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool updates an ad (implying mutation), it doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. The mention of 'optional - will use cached token if not provided' for access_token adds some context but is minimal.

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 and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bullet-point-like list of parameters with explanations. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though the formatting as a single block could be slightly improved for readability.

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 (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral details like error handling or output format. The presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps, but more context on usage and constraints would be beneficial for a higher score.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose and format (e.g., 'ad_id: Meta Ads ad ID', 'bid_amount: Bid amount in account currency (in cents for USD)'), clarifying semantics that the schema alone doesn't provide. However, it doesn't cover all nuances like valid status values beyond examples.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update an ad with new settings.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('ad'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_ad_creative' or 'update_adset', which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'update_ad_creative' or 'update_adset', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for use. The only implicit guidance is that it updates existing ads, but this is insufficient.

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