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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only states the action without explaining what 'prepare' entails (e.g., validation, draft creation, side effects), any authentication requirements, or expected follow-up steps. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 extremely brief and contains no unnecessary words, which could be seen as concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, providing only a bare statement without any supporting structure or context.

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 prepare-type tool with 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It lacks information about the prepare/confirm workflow, parameter usage, expected outcomes, or any operational context an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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% (only customer_id has a description), and the tool description adds no parameter information at all. The meanings of roas, amount_micros, and strategy are entirely undefined, and the description fails to compensate for the sparse 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 states a specific action ('Prepare updating') and a clear resource ('campaign bidding strategy'). It is distinguishable from the confirm sibling by the 'prepare' naming pattern, though it does not explicitly mention the alternative. Overall, the purpose is clear.

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 google_ads_bidding_update_confirm or any other prepare/confirm pair. The description does not explain the two-step workflow, prerequisites, or any conditions that would lead an agent to choose this tool.

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