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

Goes well beyond the annotations: replace semantics are remove+create in one request so the campaign never briefly falls back to 24/7, add can only widen, midnight ranges must be split, -100% is impossible, automated bidding accepts but ignores modifiers, and confirm=false triggers a dry-run. This is the destructive/mutation context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then organized into schedule-format, mode, and bid-modifier paragraphs. Dense and largely justified, though the block is long and some clauses could be tightened.

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?

Given six parameters, complex formatting rules, mutation semantics, and an existing output schema, everything an agent needs to invoke correctly is covered. Return values need not be explained because the output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates: it specifies the schedule block syntax and minute granularity, per-block vs global bid_modifier_pct with range -90%..+900%, and the default/dry-run behavior of confirm. Only customer_id/campaign_id are left implicit, which is reasonable.

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 (sets a campaign's ad schedule) with concrete examples ('run only during business hours'). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling get_ad_schedule and from add_microsoft_ad_schedule.

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?

Explicitly routes between mode='add' (widen only) and mode='replace' (shrink/reshape), states that Google rejects overlapping blocks in 'add', and instructs the agent to read current state with get_ad_schedule first. When/when-not/alternative are all present.

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