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

Annotations mark it destructive/non-readonly, and the description adds substantial context: clearing restores inheritance rather than disabling tracking, account defaults are untouched, saved mappings apply immediately to server-resolved leads, ad click URLs follow a separate publish timeline, and a launched Microsoft Ads save triggers a live push plus async existing-lead refresh. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

The core action is front-loaded well, but the body is long and repetitive with multiple restated cautions about timing ('do not generalize this timing,' 'do not assume historical rows are immutable'). Some warnings could be consolidated without losing meaning.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and destructive annotations, the description covers timing, inheritance, and verification well. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or the concrete error conditions it returns, which leaves a small gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by defining what AD_NAME and CAMPAIGN_NAME tokens resolve to in different ad structures. It doesn't add much beyond the schema's own 'empty string clears a key' and merge notes, hence not a 5.

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 (set/clear) plus resource (UTM parameters for one channel of a wizard campaign) and scope, plus merge semantics are stated in the first sentence. It effectively distinguishes itself from the read counterpart by naming get_campaign_utms for verification and from account-level tools by noting account defaults remain unchanged.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it (editing one channel's UTM mapping with partial merge) and points to get_campaign_utms to verify results. It explains what clearing does (restores inheritance) but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling setters like set_search_channel_final_url_suffix or get_account_utm_defaults.

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