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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds genuine context: a two-phase preview-then-confirm gate, owner approval requirement, requestId reuse for outcome recovery, and the 'claim live only when status is active' verification condition. What is missing is any statement of what a destructive update actually overwrites or what fields the mutation touches.

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?

Purpose and the approval rule are front-loaded, which is good, but the text is telegraphic and the trailing 'Fields: soclo://tools/soclo_ads_update_custom_conversion_goal' is a dangling URI that is never explained and reads as 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 10-parameter, destructive, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers the approval workflow but leaves the payload shape, the goalId target, the expected* guard fields, and what 'status is active' refers to unexplained. An agent would have to reverse-engineer the call 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?

Schema description coverage is only 60%, so the description is expected to compensate, yet it only echoes confirm and requestId, both of which the schema already documents. Nothing explains goalId, payload.name, conversionActionIds, or the expectedCurrency/expectedBudgetType/expectedBudgetAmount guard parameters, leaving roughly half the surface undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Update a custom conversion goal'), which clearly separates it from create/remove siblings and from the conversion-action and campaign-conversion-goal tools. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or clarifies when 'custom conversion goal' is the right target versus those near-neighbours.

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?

The 'Spending/deletion: preview, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId' line gives real procedural guidance on how to invoke it safely. It stops short of stating when to use this tool versus siblings such as update_ad_conversion_goals or create_custom_conversion_goal, so usage context remains implied rather than explicit.

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