ad_manager_google_upsert_assets

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, indicating a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds zero behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already imply—no mention of side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It simply repeats the operation name without enriching the agent's understanding.

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 terse ('Upsert assets'), which is technically concise but grossly under-specified. It lacks even a sentence that introduces the asset types or the conditional payload structure. While brevity is valuable, this is not appropriately sized—it omits essential context rather than efficiently conveying it.

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?

The tool has a complex nested payload with many condition-dependent fields, yet the description provides no high-level guidance on what assets are supported, how to choose the correct type, or what the upsert behavior entails (create vs update). With no output schema, the description should at least summarize expected outcomes, but it is entirely absent. The lack of any context makes the tool nearly impossible to use correctly without deep schema inspection.

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%, so every parameter has a description in the input schema. The overall description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it doesn't clarify relationships between type and payload or any conditional requirements. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither enhances nor detracts from schema clarity.

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 'Upsert assets' is a tautology of the tool name, restating the verb and resource without any specificity. It doesn't clarify what kind of assets (call, sitelink, lead form) or the platform, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone. It fails to distinguish the tool from sibling tools like ad_manager_google_upsert_campaign or ad_manager_fb_upsert_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of conditions for creating vs updating, prerequisites like integration authorization, or when to prefer ad_manager_google_get_assets for retrieval. The description is completely silent on usage context.

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