Draft: create a responsive search ad

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the ad is created PAUSED by default and that this is a draft operation returning a draftId for later confirmation. This goes beyond a simple 'creates' statement and reveals the two-phase behavior. However, it doesn't clarify interaction with the startEnabled parameter or the exact side effects, which prevents a higher score.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and essential workflow details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently conveys the draft/confirm mechanism and default paused status.

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 description captures the essential workflow and return value (draftId), which is critical given the absence of an output schema. It sufficiently explains the tool's role within the sibling set. However, it leaves some gaps, such as the exact structure of the response beyond draftId and any prerequisites or error conditions, but these are not severe given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema covers 60% of parameters, and the description adds minimal semantic value: it explains the default paused behavior (relevant to startEnabled) and places the ad 'in an ad group' (relevant to adGroupId). However, it provides no added meaning for finalUrls, headlines, or descriptions beyond the schema constraints. Given the moderate coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 action ('Draft a new responsive search ad'), the target resource ('responsive search ad'), and the location ('in an ad group'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool confirm_write by explicitly saying that confirm_write is needed to actually create the ad. This is specific and differentiates it from other creation tools like create_campaign or create_ad_group.

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 implies a two-step workflow: use this tool to draft, then call confirm_write to commit. This provides clear context on when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., creating a different ad type), so it falls short of a 5.

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