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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as the immediate memory re-sync ('the agent's memory re-syncs at once') and the required Authorization header. It also clarifies this is a write operation on live campaigns, consistent with readOnlyHint=false. These details help the agent anticipate side effects.

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 a single, action-first sentence that conveys the core purpose, lists the editable fields, notes the memory side effect, and states the auth requirement. There is no filler or 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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the action and side effect but does not specify the response format, error cases, or the exact meaning of each field (e.g., what 'when line' and '/word' refer to). It is adequate for a straightforward edit but not fully complete for an agent to invoke without additional inference.

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, the description must compensate. It maps several schema fields to human-readable terms ('link' for url, 'name' likely for title, 'when line' for when, '/word' for slug, 'logo' for logo_url), but it omits 'id' entirely and does not explain formats or the required nature of some fields. It adds partial meaning but leaves gaps.

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 clearly states the tool rewrites a live campaign's copy elements (link, name, pitch, when line, /word, logo), which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like ads_campaign_pause and ads_campaign_resume, which handle state changes rather than content editing.

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 phrase 'live campaign' implies when to use it, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how to decide between this and related tools like ads_campaign_pause. It does not mention alternative tools or preconditions beyond authentication.

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