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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is somewhat counterintuitive for an 'unlink' operation but does signal that this call itself is non-destructive. The description adds nothing beyond restating the name: it does not explain that this stages a pending operation requiring confirmation, what state it leaves behind, or any 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification for a 6-parameter mutation-staging tool.

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 6 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits the confirm follow-up, the meaning of the target/field parameters, and any behavioral context, leaving an agent unable to invoke it confidently without inspecting the schema.

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% (just customer_id), and the description does not compensate. The target levels mentioned loosely hint at target_type, but target_id, field_type, asset_resource_name, and connection_context remain undocumented in both schema and description, including no allowed values for the string-typed target_type/field_type.

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 resource ('an asset'), and enumerates the four target levels (customer/campaign/ad group/asset group). It is clearly understandable on its own, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling google_ads_asset_unlink_confirm, leaving the prepare-vs-execute split to be inferred from the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention that a prepare step is normally followed by google_ads_asset_unlink_confirm. The two-step staging workflow that the naming convention implies is left entirely unstated.

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