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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does not say what 'prepare' actually does (validation, staging, draft creation, a mutation intent), whether it is side-effect free, or what its response contains. The 'paused' status is the only behavioral detail.

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 concise as a single sentence, but the brevity is under-specification for a seven-parameter tool. No structure or ordering helps an agent decide what to pass.

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?

A 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no description of the prepare/confirm workflow is not adequately specified. An agent cannot know what prepare returns, what inputs mean, or what side effects to expect.

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 14%, and the description explains none of the seven parameters. Required fields like channel_type and budget_micros, and optional ones like roas, strategy, and amount_micros, are left entirely undefined.

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 creating') and resource ('a paused campaign and budget'), which is enough to recognize this as the staging step for creating a paused campaign. It also distinguishes from sibling create_confirm and other prepare tools, though it doesn't spell out the exact scope.

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 on when to choose this over alternatives like google_ads_pmax_create_prepare, quick_create_prepare, or campaign_create_confirm. The workflow sequence (prepare then confirm) is only implied by the name, not stated.

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