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

Beyond the destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent annotations, it discloses that confirmed creation requests active status except Google Performance Max and Demand Gen, which are created paused, and warns not to report an ad as live until active. It also covers requestId retention for ambiguous outcomes, which is exactly the operational detail annotations cannot carry.

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 with the core action, then the quote/confirm/recovery instructions in a compact sequence. It is dense but every sentence carries an operational rule; the trailing 'Fields: soclo://...' pointer and the opening restatement of the title are the only low-value lines.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with 10 parameters, nested payload, and no output schema is adequately covered: the quote/confirm contract, requestId recovery, and post-creation status behavior are all stated. The gap is the large payload object's field semantics, which the description defers entirely to the schema.

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 60% schema description coverage, the description adds real meaning for the two most consequential parameters: confirm's gating semantics and requestId's reuse requirement for confirmation and recovery. It does not explain the payload fields or the expectedBudgetAmount/expectedCurrency approval guards, relying on schema descriptions for those.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: creating an advertising campaign in a connected ad account with supplied settings. It implicitly separates itself from ad-set/ad-level creators in the sibling list (create_ad_set, create_standalone_ad), but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 prescribes the two-step flow: quote first by calling without confirm:true, show the spending preview, get owner approval, then confirm with the same requestId. It also names soclo_ads_operation_status as the recovery path for uncertain results and forbids automatic repeat of the purchase, so the when/when-not decision is fully spelled out.

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