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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, but the description goes further: it explains that objects are created immediately, that status=PAUSED prevents spend until a human clicks Enable (the stated safety boundary), that confirm=true is required, and that re-publishing is a no-op returning the existing campaign id.

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?

Front-loaded with the critical warning, and the length is defensible for a high-stakes, irreversible publish action. There is some redundancy between the description's confirm guidance and the schema's identical wording, slightly diluting efficiency.

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?

Given a destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: immediate side effects, the paused safety boundary, required confirmation, idempotent re-call behavior, and the return value (existing campaign id or a summary).

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 both parameters are fully documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the confirm gate and links draftId to save_campaign_draft/generate_campaign_draft, but largely restates the schema's confirm semantics rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 (publish/create) and resource (campaign, ad groups, keywords, ads) landing in the user's Google Ads account. Clearly distinct from siblings like save_campaign_draft, generate_campaign_draft, and edit_campaign_draft, and even notes the prior misleading name.

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 enumerates the words that must NOT trigger it ('approve', 'looks good', 'yes', 'go ahead') and the phrases that must ('publish to Google Ads', 'push it to Google Ads'). Provides an ambiguity fallback with the exact confirmation question to ask, which is unusually complete routing guidance.

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