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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: pre-send verification of operation kind, approval integrity and state drift, plus the rule that uncertain outcomes must be reconciled rather than replayed. It stops short of disclosing reversibility or downstream effects on the Performance Max campaign.

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 dense sentences, no filler. The approval prerequisite and draft binding come first, then verification behavior, then failure handling, which is the correct order for an agent deciding whether it may invoke this.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the invocation precondition, the pre-send checks and the failure-mode policy. What remains missing is what the tool returns on success and how the caller should reconcile an uncertain result.

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 only 33% (only customer_id is documented). The description gives some meaning to draft_id by tying it to the prepare sibling's output, but connection_context and its mctx_v1 format are explained nowhere, and no parameter formats, constraints or error conditions are added.

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: remove an existing asset link from a Performance Max asset group. This distinguishes it from the many sibling confirm/prepare pairs, including the non-asset-group google_ads_asset_unlink_confirm and the opposite-direction google_ads_asset_group_link_confirm.

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?

Explicit prerequisites and routing: 'After explicit approval' and 'Accepts only a matching draft from google_ads_asset_group_unlink_prepare'. An agent knows it must first call the prepare sibling and cannot substitute a draft from a different operation.

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