Create ad groups

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description discloses the batch mechanics, that items land in PAUSED when status is omitted, the confirm gate for oversized batches/values, the dry-run rehearsal path, and the account-currency micro-unit convention. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before mutating a live account.

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 impact and limits are front-loaded in the first line, then parameters and conditional rules follow in short, information-dense sentences. Nothing is filler, though the example payload plus the goal-metadata rules make it longer than strictly minimal.

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 mutation tool with three parameters, zero schema coverage and an output schema already present, the description covers payload shape, defaults, limits, escalation rules and the dry-run workflow — nearly everything needed to call it correctly. The only omission is what ad_account_id does and when it must be supplied versus inferred.

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 coverage is 0% and 'items' is a free-form object with additionalProperties, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: a worked example, required targeting_spec keys, optimization_goal_metadata shapes per campaign objective, and micro-currency math. The third parameter, ad_account_id, is never mentioned, which is the only real 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create ad groups'), states the batch ceiling (500 per call, 30 at a time) and the side effect ('Changes the live account'), so an agent can immediately tell this apart from list/update/archive ad-group tools. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the create-vs-update-vs-archive distinction is unambiguous from the verb.

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?

It gives real routing guidance: use pinterest_ads_get_targeting_options for valid codes, rehearse with dry-run first, and supply confirm='APPLY' for large batches or values above the max budget/bid. It does not state when to prefer this over update_ad_groups, but the create context is clear from the verb and the per-item payload description.

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