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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the two-step preview/approval gate, the requestId reuse contract for confirmation and recovery, and the 'active' status condition before reporting success. It does not say what unlinking actually removes or whether any spend/pacing effect follows, which is the remaining gap.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, which is good. But the fragments are telegraphic ('Claim live only when status is active') and the trailing 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' pointer is cryptic shorthand that spends a sentence on an unexplained URI.

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, non-idempotent, 10-parameter mutation with nested link/unlink item objects and no output schema, the description leaves central questions unanswered: what validateOnly does, that 'link' adds assets while 'unlink' removes them, and what a successful or partial result looks like. Only the approval gate is fully covered.

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 several parameters are documented in the schema already, and the description's confirm/requestId remarks mostly restate existing schema text. It adds nothing about the payload.link vs payload.unlink arrays, fieldType, the 100-item caps, validateOnly, or the expectedCurrency/expectedBudget* guard fields.

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 gives a specific verb pair plus resource ('Link or unlink asset group assets'), which lets an agent tell this apart from read siblings like soclo_ads_list_ad_group_assets or soclo_ads_get_google_asset_group. It stops short of naming the closest competing mutation siblings (soclo_ads_attach_ad_group_assets, soclo_ads_remove_ad_group_assets, soclo_ads_update_ad_group_assets), so the differentiation is not fully spelled out.

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 supplies a concrete operating procedure: preview first, then owner-approved confirm:true carrying the same requestId, and only claim the change is live once status is active. That is real usage context, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the attach/remove/update asset-group siblings, which is the harder routing decision.

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