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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds far more than the flag: cascade deletion of every linked headline/description/image/video, irreversibility ('gone for good'), the confirm-with-owner precaution, and the partial-update guarantee that only passed arguments change. This is rich behavioral context the annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

It is long, but front-loaded with the critical distinction (group vs assets) and the destructive warning, and virtually every sentence carries load-bearing information. A slightly tighter phrasing of the TEXT-asset constraint could shave a clause, but nothing is truly wasted.

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, partially-updating mutation tool this covers everything an agent needs: scope, mutation semantics, enum values, dry-run, irreversibility, and a discovery alternative. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted.

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 description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does: it defines the status enum values ('ENABLED'|'PAUSED'|'REMOVED'), explains confirm=false as dry-run, and clarifies that only supplied arguments mutate. Only customer_id and asset_group_id are left implicit, which are near-obvious identifiers.

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 ('Updates — or REMOVES — a Performance Max ASSET GROUP itself') and explicitly disambiguates from the sibling update_pmax_assets by clarifying 'not its individual assets'. An agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Gives explicit conditions for use (updating final_url, name, status, path1/path2), names an alternative (get_pmax_assets to see current values), and documents the dry-run via confirm=false. It also flags the one scenario where removal is the intended path (mandatory TEXT assets), which is exactly the kind of usage guidance that matters.

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