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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond them: deletion happens in the account library (not just detachment) and the confirm flag provides a dry-run gate. It omits failure behavior when the extension is shared with other campaigns, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action, then the id source, then the ordering requirement and the confirm gate. 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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to cover invocation. It does that well for the confirm/campaign_id flow, with the residual gap being the undocumented account/customer id 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 description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains confirm's preview/apply semantics and campaign_id's role, but says nothing about account_id, customer_id, or the format/cardinality of extension_ids, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 and resource ('REMOVES sitelink/callout extensions') plus the exact scope: detach from campaign and delete from the account library. This clearly separates it from add_microsoft_ad_extensions and from the Google-side remove_extension_assets.

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?

Gives real operational guidance: fetch ids from list_microsoft_ad_extensions, pass campaign_id so the association is cleared first, and confirm=false previews while confirm=true applies. It does not name a competing removal tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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