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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects itself, but 'Confirm' is too vague to convey that this likely executes a mutation or whether it is idempotent/reversible. It also says nothing about required permissions, returned receipts, or failure behavior.

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 one-sentence description is compact and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, so it earns a middle score rather than a high one.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to give an agent the full picture: it does not mention the prepare/confirm workflow, what the confirm action returns, or any side effects. Completeness is insufficient even though the parameter list is simple.

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 documents customer_id as a 10-digit ID but leaves draft_id as a bare string, and the description does not explain how to obtain or identify draft_id or how it relates to the prepare step. At 50% schema coverage and no additional parameter detail, the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action ('Confirm') and a specific resource ('a keyword-create draft'), and the word 'draft' signals this is the confirmation step of a two-phase create flow. It distinguishes the tool from the prepare variants. However, it does not state what confirming accomplishes (e.g., actually creating the keyword), so it stops short of a fully informative purpose statement.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of google_ads_keyword_create_prepare or other confirm tools. The only signal is the word 'draft,' which implies a prior prepare step, but no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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