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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a real side effect: on a launched idea, recipients not yet contacted who no longer fit are removed, and removedRecipients counts them. That is valuable context the structured fields do not provide, though there is mild tension with destructiveHint=false since data (recipients) is dropped.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the side-effect detail appended. Nothing is wasted and no restating of the title or name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the removedRecipients mention is a helpful extra. However, the undocumented 'exclude' semantics and the undefined category value format leave an agent guessing on two of three required parameters.

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 only 33%, and only ideaId is documented ('ideaId from campaign_ideas_list'). The 'exclude' parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving ambiguous whether it is categories to exclude or recipients to skip, and no format is given for category strings.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('Google Maps categories a Maps idea reaches'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling campaign_ideas_set_radius and campaign_ideas_suggest. It states exactly what the operation changes, though it never explicitly names the nearest alternative it replaces.

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 description hints that behavior differs for launched ideas (recipient removal), which implies a lifecycle context, but it never states when to call this versus set_radius or suggest, nor any preconditions such as whether the idea must exist or be in a given state. Usage must be inferred.

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