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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, but it only restates the mutation implied by the name. It does not say whether confirmation is destructive, idempotent, or what happens after successful confirmation.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler is structurally efficient. The tradeoff is that it leaves behavior and usage unstated, but it earns full credit for concision.

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 tool with three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not explain the draft-based workflow, parameter provenance, or expected result. It is enough to identify the tool but not enough to invoke it confidently in this large sibling family.

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 only 33% (customer_id only), and the description adds no information about draft_id or video_url. An agent must guess that draft_id comes from a prior prepare step and what format video_url must take.

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 specific action ('Confirm creation') and a specific resource ('Google Ads YouTube video asset reference'), which distinguishes it from the prepare-type siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with related confirm tools or explain the two-step draft flow.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, and it never mentions that a prior prepare step or draft_id is required. The 'Confirm creation' wording only implies a workflow rather than stating prerequisites or exclusions.

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