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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and does so exceptionally: atomic create_and_link, account-scoped update side effects, Google's AD_IMAGE allowlist gate, non-mutability of image assets, and all-or-nothing error semantics are all stated explicitly. This goes far beyond a generic 'manage' statement.

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?

Long but information-dense; every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant facts (scope, ops, account-scoped update warning, AD_IMAGE gating) are front-loaded. The length is proportionate to the tool's complexity.

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?

Covers operations, levels, prerequisites, constraints, and failure modes thoroughly. The only notable omission is the response/return format, and there is no output schema to fill that gap — minor for a mutation tool against otherwise excellent coverage.

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 94%, so the schema already documents most fields. The description adds genuine meaning beyond it by explaining op behavior, the level distinction, the 20-item cap, asset-id provenance, and the bare 10-digit ad_account_id format — slightly redundant with schema in places but clearly additive.

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 names a specific resource (Google Ads extensions), enumerates all six supported types, the campaign/account scope, and the four operations. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like adsap_google_list_extensions and adsap_google_upload_asset without merely restating the title.

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 instructs the agent to call adsap_google_list_extensions first, route image bytes through adsap_google_upload_asset, and use dry_run:true before create. It also explains that unlink is the only way to stop an extension serving since assets cannot be deleted — strong when-to-use and prerequisite guidance.

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