creative_create_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing about what the preview actually returns, whether it validates or persists state, or what prerequisites apply for openWorldHint access. With annotations doing the minimum, this is a missed opportunity rather than a contradiction.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but also no substance — it is under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 tool has a nested payload, an output schema, and preview semantics that need explaining, yet the description covers none of it. Because output schema and annotations exist, some burden is lifted, but for a nested create-preview operation this is insufficient.

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 100%, with profile, adAccountId, and the nested payload documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra semantics for creativeType values, destination types, or the empty creativeSpec, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Preview creation of one creative" names the verb and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name and title rather than explaining what a preview is or how it differs from creative_update_preview or creative_delete_preview. The purpose is inferable but not sharpened.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus creatives_query, creative_get, or creative_update_preview, and no mention of what a caller should do with the preview result. The agent must infer the dry-run workflow entirely from the name.

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