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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's one word 'Delete' adds nothing beyond structured data. It omits whether deletion is permanent, whether referencing creatives are affected, and whether a connection/account context must be established first, all of which matter for a destructive operation.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but for a destructive, two-parameter tool it is undersized rather than concise — a content gap rather than verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive tool with zero schema description coverage and many sibling alternatives, the description leaves the agent without the preconditions, irreversibility note, or parameter sourcing needed to invoke it safely.

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 0% for two parameters, including a required template_id and a pattern-constrained connection_context. The description only implies that a template is identified; it gives no information on the ID format, where to obtain one (e.g., from google_ads_templates_list), or the role of connection_context.

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 and resource ('Delete a reusable Google ad template'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like google_ads_entity_remove_confirm, google_ads_template_update, or google_ads_templates_list, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus template_update, entity_remove_confirm, or the templates_list lookup, and no stated prerequisites. Notably, unlike the rest of the family's prepare/confirm pattern, this tool deletes directly, and the description never acknowledges that difference.

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