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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral weight. 'Confirm' implies committing a draft, but it does not say whether this applies a status change, whether it is reversible, whether it consumes/deletes the draft, or whether it returns a mutation receipt or task id.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, which is concise in isolation. But it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured: it lacks front-loaded context, prerequisites, or any supporting detail that would make the sentence informative.

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 two-parameter confirm tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent needs at least a statement of the prerequisite step and likely effect. The description provides neither, leaving the entire prepare/confirm workflow implicit. An agent cannot tell what succeeds or fails from this text.

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?

customer_id is already documented in the schema, while draft_id has no schema description. The description adds only that the draft is an 'enable draft' and does not explain what it is, where it comes from, or how confirm uses it, so it fails to fill the 50% schema documentation 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?

The description names a verb and resource ('Confirm an enable draft'), which distinguishes it from pause/prepare siblings at a high level. However, it never says what an 'enable draft' is or what entity/status the confirmation acts on, so the purpose remains only partially clear.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to call this tool instead of google_ads_status_enable_prepare or google_ads_status_pause_confirm. The prerequisite that a draft must already exist from a prepare step is only inferable from the sibling tool names, not from the description.

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