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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by clarifying the operation is limited to unlinked assets and that linking is a separate approval step, but it does not disclose what confirmation actually does (does it commit changes, is it idempotent, can it be undone).

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 tight sentences with the operation stated first and the scope-limiting caveat second; nothing is padded. It is slightly terse for a mutation-confirmation tool but well front-loaded.

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 confirm-style mutation with no output schema, the definition leaves prerequisites (prior prepare run, origin of draft_id) and the effect of confirming unexplained. Annotations cover safety, but an agent still lacks enough to know the full call sequence.

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 33% – only customer_id carries a description. The description does not explain draft_id (presumably produced by the prepare step) or the opaque connection_context token, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Confirm') and resource ('extension asset plan') and scopes it with 'unlinked', which distinguishes it from the linking tools. It does not explicitly name the sibling google_ads_extension_asset_create_prepare it pairs with, so an agent must infer the prepare/confirm relationship from naming convention.

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?

'Linking requires separate approval' tells the agent this tool stops short of linking, which is useful routing guidance. However, it never states the precondition that a draft must first be produced by the prepare tool, nor when an agent should call this versus approval_plan_confirm.

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