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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known without the description. The description adds only the cryptic phrase 'Runs directly,' which does not disclose that detach removes label associations, whether dry_run should be used to preview changes, or permission requirements for a destructive multi-campaign operation.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covers the actions and intent efficiently, but the trailing phrase 'Runs directly' is vague filler that consumes space without telling the agent anything actionable.

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?

This is a destructive, open-world mutation tool with no output schema, 43% parameter coverage, and three distinct actions, yet the description never explains required inputs per action, the dry_run escape hatch, or expected results. An agent could easily call detach without a label_id or fire a destructive change without validating first.

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 coverage is only 43% across 7 parameters; name, action, and label_id have no schema descriptions. The description only loosely maps 'create' vs 'attach/detach' onto the action enum and says nothing about the 100-campaign cap, that label_id is required for attach/detach, or that dry_run can validate without applying changes.

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 concrete verbs and a resource (create a label, attach/detach a label to campaigns) plus a business purpose (organise and report on campaigns). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling google_ads_labels, which likely reads labels, but the mutating action set is clear enough to select the tool.

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?

It implies usage (organising/reporting on campaigns), but gives no when-to-use criteria per action, no guidance on when to prefer google_ads_labels for reading, and no prerequisites such as needing a customer ID or existing campaign/label IDs. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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