send_target_to_reviewSubmit an ad's targeting for moderation after editing. Requires a non-zero budget; confirm spend-class actions unless the gate is open.
Submit or resubmit an ad's targeting for moderation. Use after edits; launch_ad already does it. Needs non-zero budget. Spend-class: confirm=true unless gate=open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ad_id | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Confirm",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write to an open world. The description adds value beyond that: the non-zero budget precondition, the submission/resubmission distinction, and the confirm semantics. It does not explain what moderation failure looks like or whether resubmission overwrites prior state.
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?
Four short, front-loaded clauses with no filler. Slightly telegraphic — 'spend-class' and 'gate=open' are unexplained jargon — but every sentence carries routing or constraint information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers when to call it, the budget precondition, the launch_ad alternative, and the confirm flag. The undefined 'gate'/'spend-class' terms leave a small gap in what determines confirm.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It gives guidance for confirm ('confirm=true unless gate=open'), though 'gate' is never defined, and ad_id is left implicit. Partial compensation for a genuine coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Submit or resubmit an ad's targeting for moderation') that an agent can distinguish from siblings like edit_ad, launch_ad, or create_ad. It also flags the near-duplicate relationship with launch_ad, removing the main source of confusion.
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?
Explicitly says when to use it ('Use after edits'), names the tool that already covers this case ('launch_ad already does it'), and states a precondition ('Needs non-zero budget'). Routing and prerequisites are both covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.