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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: it saves a private draft, runs a Google validate-only pass, captures a complete affected-resource snapshot, and does not transmit any change. This is exactly the kind of mutation-semantics disclosure the annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with purpose then behavior then next-step. Each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does communicate that a draft is produced and should be surfaced for approval, which is the key return expectation. It stops short of explaining draft retrieval/expiry or how geo_target_id should be obtained (e.g. via google_ads_geo_targets_suggest), leaving minor gaps for a two-phase mutation tool.

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 description coverage is low (33%) – only customer_id is documented, and the nested body fields (campaign_id, geo_target_id) plus connection_context have no schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by mapping the two body fields to their conceptual roles ('exclude a geographic target from a campaign'), but gives no format, sourcing, or connection_context guidance.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Prepare to exclude a geographic target from a campaign.' It immediately distinguishes itself from its sibling by noting it does not send the change and that google_ads_negative_location_add_confirm is the follow-up. An agent can route correctly 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?

Explicitly states the workflow: this is the prepare step, show the draft for explicit approval, then call google_ads_negative_location_add_confirm. The alternative tool and the condition that selects it are named directly.

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