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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered. The description adds useful context that the tool confirms edits and reads back the resulting copy, but it does not disclose whether the confirm action is irreversible or what side effects occur beyond committing the edits.

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 two short clauses with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and adds the read-back behavior in the second clause, making it easy to parse and remember.

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?

With a single parameter, an output schema, and supporting annotations, the tool is fairly simple; the workflow is also inferable from sibling names like ads_update_copy_prepare and ads_update_copy_deny. However, the complete absence of confirm_token semantics means an agent cannot fully determine how to call the tool without external context.

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?

The only parameter, confirm_token, is a bare string with no schema description and 0% schema coverage. The description never explains what confirm_token represents, where it comes from, or how the agent should obtain it, leaving a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Confirm') with a clear resource ('approved copy edits') and adds a concrete behavioral outcome ('read back copy on the same Ad ID'). It also differentiates from sibling tools like ads_update_copy_deny and ads_replace_creative_confirm by scoping to copy edits on the same ad.

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 phrase 'approved copy edits' clearly indicates this tool should be used once copy edits have been approved, which is useful context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like ads_update_copy_deny, but the intended workflow placement is reasonably clear.

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