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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's main added value is the reversibility model: PAUSED is non-destructive and reversible via ENABLED. It only implies that REMOVED is the irreversible path rather than stating it outright, and says nothing about required permissions or side effects on serving history.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its values, then disambiguation, then parameter hints, then workspace note – a sensible ordering with almost no filler. It is dense but slightly packed into a single run-on block, which costs a point on structure rather than content.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with an output schema already present, the description covers purpose, alternatives, reversibility, level selection and workspace handling. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it enumerates the status values, gives concrete field_type examples (SITELINK, PRICE, PROMOTION, CALL), explains that omitting campaign_id means account level, and notes workspace is optional for single-workspace accounts. Only asset_id is left implicit, which its name makes self-evident.

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 ('Status einer Asset-Verknüpfung setzen') and enumerates the exact allowed values (ENABLED, PAUSED, REMOVED). It further scopes the tool to ad extensions (Sitelinks, Price, Promotion, Call assets), so an agent can distinguish it from generic status updaters like ads_update_ad_status.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with a sibling: PAUSED keeps the link and is reversible 'anders als ads_unlink_asset, das dauerhaft löst', which is exactly the decision an agent must make. It also routes discovery to ads_list_assets and states the account-level vs campaign-level condition via campaign_id.

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