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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial context beyond them: it saves a private draft, runs Google validate-only, snapshots affected resources, and does NOT send the mutation. That is a substantial behavioral disclosure. It does not mention required auth scopes or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, second sentence covers the draft/approval lifecycle. No filler and every clause adds 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 non-mutating prepare tool with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle (validate → draft → approval → confirm) and scope. Missing details like where the draft lives or its TTL, but the confirmation workflow is clear enough for an agent to act 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 coverage is only 33%; customer_id is documented but body's campaign_id/start_date/end_date are not described. The description mentions the resource ('campaign's start and end dates') but doesn't clarify date formats, timezone handling beyond 'account timezone', or why end_date is required with start_date optional. Baseline 3 given partial schema help.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('replace a campaign's start and end dates') with a precise scope modifier ('in its account timezone'). Clearly distinguishes from its confirm sibling and other prepare tools by naming the follow-up tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Prepare to replace… does not send the change') and names the alternative/next step ('Show the draft for explicit approval before calling google_ads_campaign_dates_update_confirm'). The when-not-send behavior is unambiguous.

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