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

The '[WRITE — changes your live account]' prefix adds practical emphasis beyond the annotations, and calling out confirm:true in prose surfaces the safety gate at a glance. Annotations already declare destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so the description's marginal value is modest but real; it does not, however, say what happens to other campaign settings or what the response contains.

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 sentences plus a bracketed tag, front-loaded with the most important fact (this writes to a live account). Nothing is wasted and the routing hint is placed immediately after the scope statement.

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 narrow mutation tool with full annotation coverage and a complete schema, the description supplies the essential safety framing and out-of-scope redirection. The only meaningful gap is the unaddressed overlap with google_ads_set_status.

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 every parameter including the confirm safety gate and the status enum is already documented. The description merely echoes 'name and/or status' and 'confirm:true' without adding format or behavioral detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 (update a Google Ads campaign) and limits scope to name and/or status, which is precise. It differentiates from google_ads_update_budget but never addresses the sibling google_ads_set_status, which appears to overlap substantially with the status change this tool claims — leaving a real ambiguity an agent must resolve on its own.

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 routes an adjacent action to another tool ('Budget changes go through google_ads_update_budget') and states the confirm:true requirement. What's missing is guidance on when to use this versus google_ads_set_status for pause/resume, so the alternative-selection story is only half complete.

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