Ads experiment promote

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is documented. The description adds only that treatment changes are copied to the base campaign, but does not state whether the experiment is consumed/ended, whether the base campaign's existing settings are overwritten, or what the 'confirm' token must contain for a destructive write.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, its brevity comes at the cost of the guidance and parameter meaning an agent needs for a destructive call, so it is terse rather than efficient.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, this is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with three undocumented parameters. The description leaves the confirmation mechanism and the post-promotion state of the experiment unexplained, which is insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 should compensate, yet it mentions no parameters. The 'confirm' parameter in particular is a gating argument for an irreversible operation and is left entirely unexplained, as is the format of 'experiment' and 'customer_id'.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Promote an experiment's treatment changes') and names the target ('the base campaign'), making the effect clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings such as ads.experiment.create/schedule/end, but never names them or contrasts explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; nothing tells the agent how this differs from ads.experiment.end or ads.experiment.schedule in practice. The agent has to infer that promotion is the terminal step of an experiment lifecycle.

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