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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action verb and resource, with no mention of side effects, permission requirements, irreversibility, or what happens after confirmation. This is a critical gap for a mutation-style tool.

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 description is extremely brief, almost to the point of under-specification. It is not 'appropriately sized' – it omits essential information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of usefulness.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter details, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without knowing what the draft_id refers to, what the expected outcome is, or any prerequisites. It fails to provide a complete picture.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema covers customer_id (10-digit ID) but draft_id is completely undocumented. The tool description does not explain what draft_id represents or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without necessary context at 50% schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Confirm') and a specific resource ('one reviewed Performance Max creation draft'), which distinguishes it from the prepare counterpart and other confirm tools. However, it lacks any detail about what 'confirm' entails beyond the verb itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name implies a confirm-after-prepare flow, but the description does not explicitly state that it should follow google_ads_pmax_create_prepare or mention any prerequisites or conditions.

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