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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description usefully adds one non-obvious behavior (blank string clears the product-card link), but says nothing about how existing template fields are treated or what happens when product cards are disabled.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the parameter nuance. The trailing conditional clause is slightly awkward but costs little.

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 mutation with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description is thin: it omits what the required name/template_id do, leaves the opaque payload object undefined, and gives no return/receipt behavior.

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 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only clarifies product_ref (including the blank-string clearing convention); template_id, name, template_type, connection_context, and especially the open-ended nested payload object are left entirely unexplained.

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+resource: updating a reusable Google ad template. It is distinguishable from siblings like google_ads_template_save, google_ads_template_delete, and google_ads_templates_list, though the description never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 on when to use this over google_ads_template_save or template_reverse_engineer, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the template must already exist, or whether a confirm/prepare step is needed unlike most sibling mutations). Only the product_ref mechanics are described.

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