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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Prepare linking' without indicating whether this is a read-only validation, a draft-creating mutation, or a prerequisite step with side effects. An agent cannot anticipate consequences or permission requirements.

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 description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It spends no words on the preparation concept, parameter semantics, or follow-up steps, so its brevity costs more than it saves.

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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a clear confirm-step sibling, this description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or how the prepare step connects to the mutation flow.

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 20%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. target_type, field_type, target_id, and asset_resource_name remain undefined, so the agent has no way to infer valid values or syntax beyond the bare schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Prepare'), a resource ('linking an asset'), and enumerates the target entities. It makes the tool's basic purpose clear, though it does not explain the 'prepare' pattern in the context of the confirm/unlink siblings.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus google_ads_asset_link_confirm or the unlink prepare tool. The description implies a staging step but never states that a confirm step is required or what conditions select this tool.

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