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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/non-read nature is covered. The description adds 'Esito verificato per-id' (per-item result verification), but omits the significant confirm_id two-phase preview/execute workflow that governs this mutation.

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?

Three terse clauses, single/batch modes front-loaded, all-caps markers for the mode switch and limit. No filler whatsoever.

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?

Adequate for a mutation tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose schema documents account_id/confirm_id. The only real gap is the absence of the preview-then-confirm flow in the description, which would help an agent sequence the calls correctly.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description carries extra weight and delivers the ENABLED/PAUSED value set, which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string with no enum. It maps target_id/state to single and items to batch, but says nothing about account_id, confirm_id, or profile_id.

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+resource ('Aggiorna lo stato di uno o PIÙ target SP') and enumerates the permitted values (ENABLED/PAUSED). It is clearly distinct from bid-update and keyword-state siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Explains the two invocation modes (SINGOLA: target_id + state; BATCH: items, MAX 25), which implies when to use each, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over ads_update_sp_target_bid or ads_update_sp_keyword_state, and no prerequisites.

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