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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond the word 'Prepare' – it does not say that no change is applied until the matching confirm tool runs, whether the prepared state expires, or what the tool returns to feed the confirm call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, naming the operation and its scope immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity is more under-specification than concision given the six-parameter surface.

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 six-parameter, four-required mutation-staging tool with no output schema and near-zero schema descriptions, the single sentence leaves major gaps: the confirm follow-up, the meaning of field_type/target_type values, and identification of the asset. Not sufficient for correct invocation.

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 17% (customer_id is the sole documented property), so the description must compensate. It lightly maps target_type by naming the four target kinds, but field_type, asset_resource_name, and target_id are given no meaning, and the expected connection_context pattern is never referenced.

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 ('Prepare linking') and resource ('an asset') plus the four candidate target scopes, so the intent is clear. What is missing is differentiation from the very similar sibling google_ads_asset_group_link_prepare, which the listed targets ('asset group') visibly overlap with.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention that this is the staging half of a prepare/confirm pair (google_ads_asset_link_confirm is a sibling), and no exclusions relative to asset_group_link_prepare or asset_unlink_prepare. The agent must infer the workflow from the naming pattern alone.

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