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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states which fields can be updated but omits mutation side effects, permission requirements, whether omitted fields remain unchanged, and what happens on failure.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It immediately states the operation and the affected fields.

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?

The rich schema covers all parameters, so the description is minimally sufficient for invocation. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should better address side effects and expected response behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters in detail. The description merely restates the three main optional updatable fields and does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 description names a specific verb (Update) and resource (ad group), then lists the exact updatable fields: status, name, and default max CPT bid. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling enable_ad_group, which also changes 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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as enable_ad_group or create_ad_group. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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