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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: per-asset character limits (30/90) that act as validation constraints, and the fact that the asset carries no role until linked — context an agent would otherwise get only after a failed call.

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?

Two short sentences/paragraphs with zero padding: the core action and limits come first, the workspace caveat second. Both sentences carry information not present elsewhere.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential unknowns (what counts as a valid text, when workspace is required, that role assignment happens later). Only batch-size and duplicate handling are absent, which is minor.

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 compensate. It does explain the workspace parameter as a slug that is optional when only one workspace exists, and the character limits implicitly constrain the texts array, but it never says how many texts can be passed per call or whether duplicates are rejected.

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 (anlegen/create) and resource (wiederverwendbare Text-Assets) and adds the distinctive constraint that role is only assigned later via field_type at linking, which separates it from role-specific siblings like ads_create_ad. It does not name a sibling tool directly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 note that field_type is set when linking implies this tool must be followed by a linking step (ads_link_asset / ads_add_asset_group_assets), but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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