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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the campaign is ALWAYS created paused and cannot spend until enabled, and it clarifies the confirm-gate workflow. It omits permission requirements and duplicate-handling behavior, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the state constraint, then the unit interpretation and confirm instruction. No filler; every sentence changes how the agent calls the tool.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the critical safety facts (paused, currency, confirm) but leaves half the parameters and the response/receipt undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 29%, so the description must carry more weight. It explains the currency semantics of daily_budget_major and the confirm flow, but says nothing about type, customer_id, geo_target_ids, or target_cpa_major, leaving most parameters undocumented outside 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Create a Google Ads campaign and its daily budget') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the many sibling creators (ads_create_ad_group, meta_create_campaign) by naming the platform. An agent knows exactly what entity is produced.

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 prescribes the invocation sequence — call without confirm first, then show the human the budget and monthly equivalent — which is real when/how guidance. It does not, however, contrast with siblings like ads_create_ad_group or meta_create_campaign, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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