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 genuinely new information with "VORSICHT: Nicht rückgängig machbar!" – irreversibility is stronger than what destructiveHint conveys – but it says nothing about cascade effects on contained ads/keywords or what the response confirms.

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 lines, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the risk warning and the parameter caveat. No filler, though the mixed German/English phrasing against an English tool name slightly hurts scannability.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a destructive delete the description omits how to obtain a valid ad_group_id, whether deletion cascades to child ads and keywords, and what recovery options (if any) exist. Combined with the language mismatch, an agent has to guess at important details.

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 carries the burden and does explain workspace (customer slug, optional when the account has a single workspace), which is real added value. However, the required ad_group_id is left completely undefined – no format, no pointer to ads_list_ad_groups as the source – so half the parameters remain opaque.

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 German phrase "Ad Group entfernen" does state a verb and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name/title rather than explaining scope. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like ads_remove_campaign, ads_remove_ad, or ads_update_ad_group_status (setting status to REMOVED), which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus ads_update_ad_group_status, nor any prerequisites (required permissions, whether child ads/keywords must be removed first). The only conditional text is about the workspace parameter, which is parameter semantics, not usage guidance.

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