ad_manager_google_upsert_audience

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the name, such as whether it creates or updates, required permissions, or effects on existing data. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds no value.

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 a single short phrase, which is concise but under-specified for a tool with five parameters including nested objects. It lacks necessary elaboration and structure, making it more under-specified than appropriately sized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested dimensions, exclusion dimension, no output schema), the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of dimensions, the meaning of upsert, or expected behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context to call it correctly.

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 parameter descriptions are comprehensive (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics; it does not clarify relationships between parameters or provide usage hints beyond what the schema already states.

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 audience' clearly identifies the action (upsert) and the resource (audience), which distinguishes it from sibling get/delete tools. However, it lacks detail on what an audience is or how it differs from other upsert tools like upsert_segment, so it is not fully differentiating.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain upsert semantics (create-or-update), when to choose it over get/delete or other upsert tools, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent without selection criteria.

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