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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it mutates an existing entity's state (ENABLED|PAUSED), but omits meaningful behavioral context such as whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or that a confirm_id round-trip is needed to actually commit the write.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its constraint; the exclusion is stated second. No filler.

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 destructive mutation with a nested, undocumented patches payload and no output schema, the description should say more about what can be patched and how the confirm step works. The schema covers account_id and confirm_id, but the core write payload is left unexplained by both.

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 50%, with the critical nested 'patches' object and 'ad_group_id' undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by hinting at patch content (state ENABLED|PAUSED), but does not explain the patches structure or the confirm_id two-step, leaving a real gap.

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 ('Aggiorna') and resource (SB ad group), and explicitly distinguishes it from a create operation ('NON crea ad group nuovi'). However it never names the analogous siblings (ads_update_sp_ad_group, ads_update_sd_ad_group), so differentiation relies on the tool name rather than the description.

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?

The 'ESISTENTE'/'NON crea' phrasing gives an implicit exclusion (do not use to create), which is useful routing guidance. But it offers no positive when-to-use context and does not mention the preview/confirm workflow or when to prefer the SP/SD variants.

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