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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds concrete substance beyond that: recommendations can alter budgets, bids and targeting, and explicit user confirmation is required — a real workflow constraint rather than a restatement of annotations.

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?

Three short lines, with the action and the confirmation warning front-loaded before the parameter note. No filler, though the workspace hint could be trimmed since the schema already marks it optional with a null default.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the definition covers source of input, safety consequence, and required confirmation. Return-value explanation is unnecessary given the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: resource_name's provenance (ads_list_recommendations) and workspace's meaning (client workspace slug, optional when only one workspace) are both explained. It stops short of showing the resource-name format, which keeps it from a 5.

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 (anwenden/apply) and resource (Google Ads recommendation), and points to the exact sibling (ads_list_recommendations) that supplies the resource_name. An agent can distinguish this from ads_dismiss_recommendation without opening either schema.

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?

'Nur nach ausdrücklicher Bestätigung anwenden' gives an explicit precondition for invocation, and the parenthetical tells the agent to obtain resource_name from ads_list_recommendations first. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling dismiss tool, but the usage context is clear.

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