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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: the tool does not mutate the ad account, it returns a proposal_id and preview, and the proposal should only be applied after user confirmation. These details are central to using a non-destructive staging tool correctly and are consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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 three compact sentences, front-loads the staging behavior, and every sentence adds actionable information about non-mutation, return values, and confirmation workflow.

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?

Given the rich schema, existing output schema, and annotations, the description provides the remaining context an agent needs: this is a staging tool, it returns a preview/proposal_id, and apply_change is the follow-up only after confirmation. No critical usage detail appears to be missing.

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%, so the schema already documents platform, entity_id, fields, account_id, and campaign_id in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the workflow, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Stage a change to an existing ad.' It clearly distinguishes this from apply_change by saying it does not change the account and only returns a proposal/preview, and it implicitly distinguishes from propose_create_ad/propose_delete_ad through 'existing ad' and 'change.'

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: stage the change, show the preview, and call apply_change(proposal_id) only after user confirmation. This tells the agent both when to use this tool and which sibling to use next, with a clear confirmation gate.

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