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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses internal verification of operation kind, approval integrity and state drift, and warns that outcomes are not safely replayed. It does not mention permissions or failure/error 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition, then the failure-handling rule. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 destructive confirm operation with no output schema, the description covers the required predecessor draft, the pre-send verification, and the non-replay reconciliation rule. Remaining gaps (permissions, error/return semantics) are modest given annotations already carry the safety profile.

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% (just customer_id documented), so the description must compensate. It names customer_id and draft_id and clarifies that draft_id must be a matching draft produced by the prepare tool, which adds meaning. However it gives no format or syntax detail for draft_id or connection_context, leaving half the gap unfilled.

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) plus the resource and scope (exclude a geographic target from a campaign), and names the exact key inputs. It explicitly ties itself to the google_ads_negative_location_add_prepare sibling, so an agent can distinguish the confirm step from the prepare step without opening either schema.

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?

Makes the precondition explicit: it only accepts a matching draft from google_ads_negative_location_add_prepare. It also instructs that uncertain outcomes must be reconciled without replay, which routes the agent toward the reconcile sibling. It stops short of naming an alternative tool by name or stating when NOT to call it.

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