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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Confirm' implies a mutation/commit of a draft, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, what happens to the draft after confirmation, or any error states. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and condition immediately, making it easy to parse.

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 confirmation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a write side-effect, this description is too sparse. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a mutation receipt), whether the operation is idempotent or reversible, or how the draft relates to other workflow tools like google_ads_entity_update_prepare or google_ads_mutation_receipt_get. An agent would lack critical operational context.

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 50% (only customer_id has a schema description). The description's 'entity-update draft' gives a vague hint that draft_id identifies a draft, but it does not explain how the draft is created, how to obtain a valid draft_id, or the relationship to the prepare step. It fails to compensate for the undocumented draft_id.

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 ('one typed entity-update draft') with a clear contextual step ('after reviewing its before/after diff'). It distinguishes the tool from the counterpart prepare tool by its confirm action, though it does not explicitly separate it from other confirm variants.

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 phrase 'after reviewing its before/after diff' implies the workflow sequence (prepare → review → confirm) and establishes a precondition. However, it does not name the related prepare tool or provide explicit exclusion criteria or alternatives, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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