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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'prepare' but does not disclose whether it performs any actual mutation, whether it validates the unlink, or what side effects it has. It also doesn't state if it is read-only or requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation-preparation tool.

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 sentence and thus concise, but it packs no useful content beyond the action. It is not front-loaded with key details; it simply states the purpose. Conciseness is not a virtue when it omits critical usage and behavioral information.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 4 required, and no annotations or output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the prepare/confirm step, the meaning of each parameter, the target types, or the expected result. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool without additional documentation.

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 20% (only customer_id has a description). The description adds no parameter information whatsoever. Parameters like target_type, field_type, asset_resource_name, and target_id are left entirely unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage. An agent cannot infer what values to provide.

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 states a specific verb ('prepare unlinking') and a resource ('asset from customer/campaign/ad group/asset group'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'link' by using 'unlinking', and the 'prepare' vs 'confirm' pattern is implied by sibling names, though not explicitly stated. Could be more explicit about the two-phase prepare/confirm workflow.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that this should be called before google_ads_asset_unlink_confirm, nor when to use it instead of google_ads_asset_link_prepare. An agent has no information to select it correctly among the many prepare/confirm siblings.

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