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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: only AdsAgent-owned cards can be deleted, implying other cards will not be affected. However, it omits irreversibility, prerequisite auth/permissions, and behavior when the card is not owned.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifier is placed where it is most useful. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a destructive operation — its brevity is more under-specification than conciseness.

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?

Annotations carry the destruction warning and the description carries the ownership scope, but the tool has no output schema, no prepare/confirm sibling, undocumented parameters, and no statement of what the agent gets back or whether the deletion is reversible. Adequate but with clear gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

Two parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema supplies only names and types. The description says nothing about card_id format or the connection_context token, but card_id is a self-evident identifier, keeping this at a baseline-adjacent 3 rather than a severe 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 (Delete) and resource (product-card metadata) in a single clear phrase. The qualifier 'AdsAgent-owned' narrows scope meaningfully, though it never names or contrasts with siblings like google_ads_product_card_update or google_ads_product_cards_list. An agent can infer purpose, but sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. Notably, unlike almost every other mutation in this sibling set, this delete has no prepare/confirm counterpart, and the description does not explain whether confirmation is required or when deletion is appropriate versus update.

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