ad_manager_google_publish_ad

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to state it's a mutation, but it also discloses no additional behavior—what 'publish' means (e.g., activating the ad, making it live), whether it's reversible, or side effects. The description adds no value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise ('Publish ad') with no waste, which is efficient. However, its brevity is borderline under-specification—it carries only the minimum information and doesn't front-load any contextual cues.

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?

While the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description offers no context about expected behavior, prerequisites, or return values. The agent gets no help in judging if this is the right tool for a given scenario, especially with so many sibling tools.

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 100% (adId is described as 'Ad identifier'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning, yielding a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Publish ad') on a specific resource, and the name includes 'google' and 'ad', distinguishing it from other platform tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling publishing tools like ad_manager_fb_publish_campaign or ad_manager_li_publish_campaign_group, limiting differentiation beyond the name.

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 tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., ad must be in a draft state), and no exclusions. The description leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the many sibling ad-manager tools.

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