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

Annotations mark this as non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds nothing about what confirming does — whether it creates the keywords immediately, whether it consumes quota, whether the draft can be reused, or what happens on failure. For a mutation-confirm tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste. It is appropriately sized but arguably too terse given what's missing.

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 and only 33% parameter coverage, the description should state the prepare-then-confirm flow, what gets created, and the meaning of draft_id/connection_context. None of that is present.

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 only 33%: customer_id is documented, but draft_id and connection_context have no schema descriptions. The description says nothing about where draft_id comes from (presumably the prepare step) or what connection_context is, so it doesn't compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb (Confirm) and resource (keyword-create draft), clearly distinguishing it from its sibling google_ads_keyword_create_prepare. It doesn't explain what confirmation actually does (e.g., applies the draft to the ad account), but the pairing with _prepare is clear.

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 prepare/confirm naming convention implies this is the second step after google_ads_keyword_create_prepare, but the description never says when to use this versus the prepare step, nor what prerequisites exist. Usage is implied by convention only.

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