Confirm a draft write

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state that the tool 'actually changes the Google Ads account,' which is a key side effect. However, it does not mention idempotency (what happens if called twice with the same draftId), preconditions beyond existence of the draft, or potential failure modes. These are relevant for a commit-like operation, so the transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 two compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Both sentences carry essential information: the first defines the action and source, the second emphasizes its unique role. There is no verbosity or repetition.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers its core purpose, source context, and critical behavioral constraint. However, it does not specify the return value or any post-confirmation behaviors (e.g., whether the draft is marked as applied). For a commit-style tool, this is a minor but notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to the 'draftId' parameter. It does so by explaining that the draft comes from create_campaign, update_campaign_status, or add_keywords, clarifying that the ID refers to a previously drafted write. This gives the parameter operational context beyond the raw UUID schema.

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 the tool's action: 'Execute a previously drafted write... for real.' It names the resource (Google Ads account) and scope (only tool that actually changes it), which distinguishes it from sibling drafting tools like create_campaign, update_campaign_status, and add_keywords.

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 explicitly identifies when to use the tool: after creating a draft via specific sibling tools (create_campaign, update_campaign_status, add_keywords). It also states 'This is the only tool that actually changes the Google Ads account,' providing a clear selection criterion versus the drafting tools.

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