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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful traits: it performs verification of operation kind, approval integrity and state drift before sending, and warns that uncertain outcomes must be reconciled without replay. That is real non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe response/atomicity details.

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 dense sentences, no filler; the action is stated first followed by preconditions and reconciliation policy. Structure is efficient though each sentence carries multiple clauses.

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, approval-gated mutation with no output schema, the description covers the approval gate, the prepare-draft prerequisite, pre-send verification and reconcile-not-replay policy. The only gap is the undocumented connection_context parameter, which is minor relative to what is covered.

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% (only customer_id is documented as a 10-digit id). The description clarifies that draft_id must be a matching draft produced by the prepare step, which compensates partially, but connection_context remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 compound verb and resource ('remove the existing campaign ad schedule and replace it'), and names the exact sibling it pairs with ('google_ads_schedule_replace_prepare'). An agent can distinguish this from the prepare sibling and from other *_confirm tools without opening schemas.

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?

'After explicit approval' and 'accepts only a matching draft from google_ads_schedule_replace_prepare' give clear preconditions for when this tool runs. The uncertain-outcome path is described behaviorally ('must be reconciled without replay') but the reconcile alternative is not named explicitly, so routing is slightly less sharp than the top tier.

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