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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the two-phase preview/apply mechanism via confirm, and that criterion_ids must be sourced from list_ip_exclusions. It does not mention retry behavior or what happens to ids that don't exist, which would round it out.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and its inverse, then the parameter essentials. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of structured fields.

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 mutation with an output schema present (so return values need no explanation), the description covers purpose, id provenance, and the safety-critical preview flow. Minor gap: no note on idempotency or permission prerequisites.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents two of the four well (criterion_ids format and source, confirm as preview toggle) but gives nothing on campaign_id or customer_id scope, leaving half the parameters to inference.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Removes IP exclusions from a Google Ads campaign') with an explicit sibling reference ('undo of block_ip_addresses'). An agent can distinguish this from block_ip_addresses, list_ip_exclusions, and the many other mutation tools without opening a schema.

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?

Provides a clear operational workflow: get ids from list_ip_exclusions, then confirm=false to preview vs confirm=true to apply. This tells the agent how to proceed safely. It stops short of stating when not to use it or prerequisites (e.g. permission requirements or how to find campaign_id).

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