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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds the confirm/requestId recovery protocol, which is genuine added context, but 'Claim live only when status is active' is cryptic and the spending/deletion language does not match a label update.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the verb and resource, which is good. But the 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' pointer is a low-value artifact and the spending/deletion sentence reads as copied boilerplate that adds noise rather than information.

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, open-world mutation with a nested payload and no output schema, the description should say what fields are being changed and what happens to unspecified ones. Instead it offers an opaque URI and an ambiguous 'status is active' claim, leaving the agent to infer the update semantics from the schema alone.

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?

Ten parameters at 60% schema description coverage, and the description only echoes confirm and requestId, which the schema already documents. It never mentions labelId, payload fields (name, description, backgroundColor), platform or the expected* preview parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Update a Google Ads label.' That is enough to separate it from create_ad_label, attach_ad_label and remove_ad_label by name alone, though the description never explicitly distinguishes them.

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 one concrete procedural rule (preview, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId), which is real usage guidance. But it never says when to reach for this tool versus the sibling label tools, and the spending/deletion framing is boilerplate that does not obviously apply to a label edit.

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