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 the batch cap (MAX 25) and the per-id verification note (Esito verificato per-id), which is useful post-write context, but it does not disclose reversibility or that the schema's confirm_id preview flow governs the actual 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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the two modes and the limit. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 state-mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the valid states, the two call shapes, the batch limit, and post-write verification. Gaps are minor: the confirm_id preview flow and multi-outpost account_id handling live only in the schema.

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 50%. The description compensates for the core target_id/state/items parameters by spelling out the single and batch shapes and the max-25 limit. It adds nothing about account_id, confirm_id, or profile_id, leaving part of the parameter surface to the schema only.

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 (stato di target SP), and enumerates the valid states (ENABLED/PAUSED). The single-vs-batch framing distinguishes it from sibling state tools like ads_update_sp_keyword_state. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Clearly delineates the two invocation modes (SINGOLA: target_id + state; BATCH: items array) so the agent knows how to call it in either scenario. However, it gives no when-not guidance or explicit routing to sibling tools such as ads_update_sp_target_bid or ads_delete_sp_targets.

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