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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the important non-obvious behavior: spending/deletion requires a prior preview and an owner-approved confirm:true reusing the requestId, and claims are live only when status is active. That is genuine context beyond annotations, though the recovery path (how to check status via operation_status) is unnamed.

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?

Front-loaded and short with no filler prose, but the trailing "Fields: soclo://tools/soclo_ads_attach_ad_group_assets" is an opaque reference that earns no place without explanation. The safety rule is compressed to near-telegraphic phrasing.

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 destructive, spend-affecting, 10-parameter nested mutation with no output schema, the safety gate is covered but much is not: what a successful attach returns, how to verify the 'status is active' claim, and which tool produces the required preview. Adequate minimum, clearly incomplete.

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 60%, and the description names no parameters at all. The only parameter-related concepts it touches (confirm, requestId reuse) are already spelled out verbatim in the schema, so it adds nothing. The large nested payload (images, callouts, sitelinks, structuredSnippets) and its constraints are left entirely to the schema with no explanatory framing.

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 verb+resource ("Attach ad-group assets") is stated, but it is essentially a restatement of the title/name, with no scope detail. Siblings soclo_ads_update_ad_group_assets, soclo_ads_remove_ad_group_assets, and soclo_ads_attach_campaign_assets are never distinguished, so the agent cannot tell what 'attach' covers here versus update/remove.

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 a real workflow rule (preview first, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId) which implies when this tool may be called. But it never says when to prefer update_ad_group_assets over attach, or what prerequisites (account connection, ad set existence) are required.

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