edit_ad

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields are sent'), the special encoding of picture=False as sending picture=0, media removal via clear_media=True, and the surprising budget behavior that increase resumes a depleted ad. No contradiction with the readOnly, destructive, or idempotent hints.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose followed by dense, scannable exception notes. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 mutating tool, the description covers the most important operational concerns: partial updates, ambiguous boolean flags, budget behavior, and the targeting/clone_ad distinction. It falls short of a 5 by not addressing several of the 22 parameters, particularly the schedule-related and conversion fields, though an output schema does exist.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 22 parameters, the description explains only the highest-risk parameters: picture, clear_media, budget_action, and budget_amount. The global 'only provided fields are sent' rule helps, but many parameters such as schedule_tz, schedule_tz_custom, views_per_user, and conversion_event remain dependent on name inference.

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 'Edit an ad', a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by explicitly noting that targeting cannot be changed after creation and directing the agent to clone_ad instead.

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 clearly states when to use this tool (field-level edits to an ad) and when not to (targeting changes), naming clone_ad as the alternative. It also gives conditional usage guidance for picture, clear_media, and budget_action + budget_amount.

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