applyAdChange

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

Annotations provide no read-only or idempotent hints, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It details the re-read logic, the contract enforcement (preview is a contract, not a suggestion), the stale and uncertain states, the locking behavior, and the immediate update of the stored campaign list. This is exemplary transparency that goes far beyond the sparse annotations.

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 dense but each sentence carries essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and exclusivity, then progressively explains the state machine, error handling, and post-conditions. No word is wasted, and the structure logically guides the reader from purpose to usage to edge cases.

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 of the operation (state transitions, contract enforcement, locking, and resolution), the description covers all critical aspects: preconditions, stale handling, uncertain outcome and its implication, resolution path, and immediate data consistency update. It also references resolveAdChange, ensuring the agent knows the follow-up action. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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?

The only parameter, id, has a schema description ('Id of the change request.') that is 100% covered. The description adds semantic meaning by specifying that the id must refer to an approved and non-expired change request, and that the request's state will transition based on the operation. This goes beyond the schema's basic description, providing context on what the id represents in the workflow.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply an approved change at the advertising platform.' It also states it is 'The only call that changes anything at the platform,' clearly distinguishing it from siblings like previewAdChange, approveAdChange, and rejectAdChange. The purpose is unambiguous and contextually rich.

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?

It explicitly states the precondition: only for a request that is 'approved' and not expired. It further explains when the operation will not proceed (stale request) and that an uncertain outcome keeps the campaign locked until resolveAdChange is called. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool, and implicitly when not to (e.g., unapproved or expired requests).

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