Draft: update ad group status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the critical non-immediate behavior: it returns a draftId and requires confirm_write to apply. This is a significant behavioral trait beyond what the schema implies. It also notes the target is 'an existing ad group,' hinting at validation. However, it does not mention error conditions, permissions, or side effects of removal.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the critical return value and next step. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. This is a model of concise, structured documentation.

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 has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential operational details: it is a draft operation, returns a draftId, and requires confirm_write to finalize. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the workflow. It lacks explicit notes on error handling or permissions, but those are not critical for this simple tool.

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 describes adGroupId as 'Numeric ad group ID' but leaves status without a description. The tool description lists the possible status values (enabling, pausing, removing), which adds semantic context. However, it does not clarify parameter formats or provide additional meaning beyond the schema's enum. With schema coverage at 50%, the description only partially compensates for the missing status description.

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 function: 'Draft enabling, pausing, or removing an existing ad group.' It uses a specific verb-resource combination and explicitly lists the three possible status changes. The mention of 'Draft' and 'confirm_write' distinguishes it from direct update tools like update_campaign_status or update_keyword_status, which likely apply immediately.

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 clear context that this tool stages changes (returns a draftId) and that confirm_write is needed to apply them. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The sibling list includes similar update tools, but the description itself does not compare or exclude them, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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