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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine value beyond that with the two-step preview/confirm protocol and the requestId reuse rule for outcome recovery. The cryptic 'Claim live only when status is active' line slightly muddies rather than clarifies.

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 approval constraint placed before the field list. However, the trailing 'Fields: soclo://tools/soclo_ads_update_google_asset_group' is an opaque URI pointer that tells the agent nothing actionable, so one of the three sentences does not earn its place.

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, ten-parameter mutation with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotation coverage of the approval flow, the description covers the approval protocol but omits what the call returns and never points at soclo_ads_operation_status for outcome recovery, despite introducing requestId for that purpose. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, and the description reinforces confirm and requestId semantics already documented in the schema. It says nothing about the ten-parameter surface it leaves unexplained: the accountId vs adAccountId distinction, platform, expectedCurrency/expectedBudgetType/expectedBudgetAmount, or the payload fields. With partial schema coverage, it only partially compensates.

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: 'Update a Performance Max asset group.' This clearly separates it from siblings like create_google_asset_group, get_google_asset_group, and remove_google_asset_group. It does not, however, distinguish it from the adjacent soclo_ads_edit_google_asset_group_assets or soclo_ads_update_campaign_assets, so an agent must guess which update path applies to asset links.

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 useful precondition: spending/deletion changes require a preview followed by an owner-approved confirm:true reusing the same requestId. That is real when-to-use guidance. But it offers no alternatives or exclusions, e.g. when to use this versus edit_google_asset_group_assets for asset-level changes, leaving routing partly implied.

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