update_ad_creative

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's an update operation but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) but is verbose with detailed parameter explanations. While informative, it could be more front-loaded with critical usage information. The parameter documentation is thorough but makes the description lengthy.

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 complexity (11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description does well by documenting all parameters thoroughly and mentioning the return format. However, it lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and usage guidelines compared to siblings. The output schema exists, so return value explanation isn't needed.

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 in the 'Args' section, explaining the purpose and constraints of all 11 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates by adding crucial semantic information like mutual exclusivity rules ('cannot be used with headlines'), requirements ('Required when using lead generation CTAs'), and parameter purposes.

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 existing ad creative with new content or settings.' It specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('ad creative'), and scope ('new content or settings'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_ad' or 'create_ad_creative', 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' or 'create_ad_creative', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for choosing this tool over others.

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