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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: atomic replace semantics, that minimums (3 headlines, 1 long headline, 2 descriptions, 1 business name) are validated before anything is sent, and that confirm=false produces a dry-run. These are non-obvious behavioral traits.

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 the core behavior, then progressively adds the remove/add mechanics, the atomic-replace rationale, minimums, and dry-run. Every sentence conveys distinct, load-bearing information with 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?

For a destructive mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers validation, safety, dry-run, and the add/remove interplay. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 burden, and it does: it explains the three additive fields, the comma-separated remove_resource_names source, and the confirm dry-run flag. Only the two obvious ID fields (customer_id, asset_group_id) go unmentioned.

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 states a precise verb pair and resource: adds AND removes text assets in an existing PMax asset group. It then delineates which fields add (headlines/long_headlines/descriptions) versus which field removes (remove_resource_names), so an agent can distinguish behavior without opening the 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?

It provides clear context: remove_resource_names comes from get_pmax_assets, and combining add+remove is the way to atomically REPLACE when a field is at maximum. However it doesn't explicitly name when NOT to use it or point to alternatives like update_pmax_asset_group or add_pmax_images.

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