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

The description adds real value beyond the annotations: it explains why destructiveHint=false (this call is non-destructive; permanence happens on apply), states the account is not mutated, and names the return value. That said, the annotations already flag non-readOnly/non-idempotent, and the description doesn't cover rate limits, auth, or failure modes, so it sits at a solid but not exceptional level.

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 sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (staging, permanence, non-mutation/return, confirmation gate), with the effect front-loaded. Nothing is padded.

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 output schema covers return values, and the description still names proposal_id and the preview so the agent knows what to surface. Combined with the confirmation gate and permanence warning, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly without risking an unconfirmed deletion.

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 100%, so platform, entity_id, account_id and campaign_id are all documented in the schema, including the Taboola campaign_id:item_id format. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the 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?

"Stage deleting an ad" gives a specific verb (stage) plus resource (ad), and the word "stage" immediately separates it from siblings propose_delete_ad_set/propose_delete_campaign and from propose_update_ad. An agent knows exactly which sibling to pick without opening a schema.

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?

It prescribes the full workflow: show the preview, then call apply_change(proposal_id) only after user confirmation. It also warns that applying is permanent, which is the key when-to-use condition. Alternative tools are named explicitly.

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