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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses that the call validates operation kind, approval integrity, and state drift before sending, and that it is draft-bound and must not be replayed. These are non-obvious execution behaviours an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the action and target, then the prerequisite, then the failure-handling rule. No filler or repetition.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies prerequisite, validation, and reconciliation guidance. It leaves the response/outcome shape and the connection_context parameter unexplained, but otherwise an agent has what it needs to invoke correctly.

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 only 33% (only customer_id is documented). The description partially compensates by tying draft_id to a matching draft from the prepare tool, but it says nothing about connection_context or the expected draft_id format, leaving a documented gap.

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 (Confirm), resource (one supported ad's status), and the exact value domain (PAUSED or ENABLED), and names the sibling prepare tool it consumes drafts from. An agent can distinguish this from google_ads_status_pause_confirm or google_ads_ad_status_update_prepare 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?

Explicitly names the required upstream tool (google_ads_ad_status_update_prepare) and the condition that a matching draft must exist, plus the reconcile-without-replay rule for uncertain outcomes. It does not spell out when the operation should be abandoned or declined, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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