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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Confirm an ad-copy draft' without indicating whether this is a mutating action, what the side effects are, whether it can be undone, or whether it requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool likely to create or modify ads.

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 terse—five words—but this under-specification hurts rather than helps. It lacks essential context about the operation, so it is not appropriately sized. It front-loads the verb but sacrifices meaning.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the confirm step, any expected outcomes, or how it relates to the prepare sibling. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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?

The schema covers only customer_id (with a description), leaving draft_id undocumented. The description adds minimal parameter meaning—'ad-copy draft' hints that draft_id refers to the draft, but it does not explicitly map parameters or explain their roles. It does not compensate for the 50% schema 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 states a specific verb ('Confirm') and resource ('ad-copy draft'), which is more informative than a tautology. However, 'confirm' is ambiguous—it could mean approving, submitting, or validating—and the description does not clarify that this is the second step of a prepare/confirm pair (sibling google_ads_copy_ad_prepare).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should follow google_ads_copy_ad_prepare, nor does it exclude other confirm tools. An agent gets no context about prerequisites or the two-step flow.

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