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

Beyond annotations declaring a destructive write, the description discloses that a linked structure draft may automatically prepare a next preview without confirming or executing it, and that Review Sandbox simulates writes and skips continuation. It also highlights the one-time confirmation receipt and idempotency requirements, which are behaviorally important for safe retries.

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 four focused sentences, front-loading the core constraint that only a confirmed plan is executed. Each sentence carries useful operational context about prerequisites, continuation behavior, or sandbox behavior.

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 complex destructive workflow tool with nested parameters and an output schema, the definition covers the key call prerequisites, continuation side effect, and sandbox distinction. Error and reconciliation guidance is supplied in the schema's planId description, so no critical agent guidance 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains planId, confirmationReceipt, idempotencyKey, and applyContinuation in more detail than the tool description. The description adds only high-level requirements, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: executing a confirmed AD_AD_GROUP_CHANGE plan, and clarifies that it changes ad-group default bids, states, or names. This distinguishes it from prepare_* and from apply_* tools for other resource types without requiring the schema.

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 clearly states that only a confirmed plan may be executed and that a one-time confirmation receipt and idempotency key are required. It also notes Review Sandbox behavior, but it does not explicitly name prepare_ad_group_changes or confirm_workflow_plan as the preceding steps, leaving that routing to inference from sibling names and schema.

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