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

The description adds the approval/confirm protocol and requestId reuse semantics that the annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true) do not convey, which is genuinely useful. However the 'Spending/deletion' framing is boilerplate that does not match creating a label, and 'Claim live only when status is active' is opaque jargon with no explanation of what status refers to or where to read it.

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, front-loaded with purpose then the operational constraint; nothing is padded. The URI pointer and the 'Spending/deletion' clause are the weakest elements and read as boilerplate.

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 10-parameter, nested-payload mutation with no output schema, the description omits the payload contents and the expectedCurrency/expectedBudget* approval-verification fields entirely. It mentions requestId for outcome recovery but does not point at soclo_ads_operation_status, leaving the recovery path implicit.

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 60%, so the description need not document everything, but it only reinforces confirm and requestId — both of which already have schema descriptions — and never mentions payload.name, backgroundColor, description, or the expected* approval-verification fields. The 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' pointer is a reference rather than usable meaning.

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 and resource ('Create a Google Ads label'), which cleanly separates it from soclo_ads_update_ad_label, soclo_ads_remove_ad_label and soclo_ads_list_ad_labels by name. It does not draw the line against soclo_ads_attach_ad_label (applying an existing label to an entity), which is the one sibling an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition sequence: preview first, then owner-approved confirm:true reusing the same requestId, and only treat the result as live once status is active. It does not say when to choose create-label versus attach-label, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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