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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description never explains the defining behavioral trait of a 'prepare' tool in this family — that it stages a change and does not apply it until confirm — nor does it mention permissions or approval 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?

It is a single clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine. But at eight words it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of all actionable detail.

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 mutation-staging tool with no output schema and near-empty parameter coverage, the description should carry the workflow and parameter burden. It omits the confirm counterpart, what the prepare step returns, and the meaning of the strategy/roas/amount_micros inputs.

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), leaving strategy, roas, amount_micros, campaign_id and connection_context undocumented. The phrase 'bidding strategy' loosely gestures at the strategy param but supplies none of the allowed strategy values or the ROAS/micros relationship, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Prepare updating') with a specific resource ('a campaign bidding strategy'), so the agent knows exactly which object is touched. It does not, however, distinguish this from its sibling google_ads_bidding_update_confirm or explain what 'prepare' produces, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the required follow-up confirm step, and no reference to alternatives despite a near-identical confirm sibling in the tool list. The agent must infer the two-phase workflow entirely from naming.

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