launch_ad

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

Despite the launch_ad name, the description discloses the surprising key behavior that it does not activate the ad, and reveals the multi-step internal workflow (on_hold creation, budget, review). It also explains the failure-reporting response design ('Returns each step so you can see which one failed'), all of which goes well beyond the annotations' bare mutation/non-idempotent flags.

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?

Three short sentences each earn their place: the workflow plus the critical non-activation caveat are front-loaded, followed by the failure-reporting behavior and the routing guidance. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

The workflow, the non-activation side effect, the error-reporting behavior, and the usage routing are all covered, and the output schema handles return values. However, with 16 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and required params like cpm unexplained, the description is not fully self-sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 16 parameters and the description adds no parameter explanations; only 'add budget' loosely hints at budget/daily_budget. The required cpm parameter is particularly cryptic, and string-list fields like countries, channels, and audience_id have no format guidance (e.g., delimiters or encoding).

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 states a concrete multi-step workflow ('Create on_hold, add budget, submit for review') with an explicit negative scope ('Does not activate'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by naming the exact calls it replaces (create_ad + edit_ad + send_target_to_review), so an agent can immediately tell launch_ad apart from those alternatives.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer this over calling create_ad + edit_ad + send_target_to_review by hand,' giving a clear directive for when this tool is the right choice. However, it stops short of stating exclusions — e.g., when an agent would want the manual sequence or immediate activation instead.

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