ad_manager_google_upsert_campaign

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the word 'upsert'. It does not disclose what happens to existing campaigns, whether settings are overwritten, or any permission requirements. The description adds no value over 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 terse ('Upsert Google campaign') and provides no additional instructive content. It essentially repeats the tool name and lacks any meaningful structure or value beyond the bare minimum.

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 tool with 22 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description fails to provide essential context about behavior, required fields, or how to use the tool correctly. An agent would be left entirely dependent on the schema, which is insufficient for such a complex operation.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, but since the schema fully covers them, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the primary action (upsert) and the resource (Google campaign), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It also differentiates from sibling upsert tools for other platforms (fb, li) by specifying 'Google'.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., when to create vs update, or when to choose Google over Facebook/LinkedIn). No contextual cues for appropriate usage are given.

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