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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds almost nothing beyond them. It does not say whether disabling a flag revokes existing access, whether the change is reversible, what permissions are required to set another party's policy, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and parameter detail rather than reflecting genuine economy of expression.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and no annotation-supplied detail about effects. For a permission-changing tool on a third-party ad account, the description omits the identity of the actor, the scope of the change, and the consequences of toggling each flag off.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it only partially compensates by naming the three policy dimensions (pull/create/decision) that map to allow_pull/allow_create/allow_decision. connection_ref, customer_id, and connection_context are left entirely unexplained, as is what happens when a boolean is omitted.

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 ("Set") and resource ("pull/create/decision policy") scoped to one connection/customer route, which is far better than a tautology. It fails to distinguish this from the near-identical sibling google_ads_connection_permissions_set, and the phrase "customer route" is jargon left undefined, capping it below 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. With a sibling named google_ads_connection_permissions_set, the agent is given no basis for choosing between the two, which is exactly the situation usage guidance exists for.

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