Ads experiment schedule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing the annotations don't say — critically, it never explains that a destructive schedule operation involves the undocumented `confirm` parameter, nor what happens to the experiment or its budget/campaign linkage once started.

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?

Four words, front-loaded, zero padding. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication, so it earns a middling score rather than a high one.

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 (so return values need not be described), this is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an unexplained confirmation parameter and no guidance on preconditions or side effects. For that complexity level the description is far too thin.

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% across three parameters. The description's only overlap is the word "experiment", leaving `customer_id` and especially the string-typed, nullable, defaulted `confirm` parameter unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether confirm is a token, a name, or an acknowledgment flag.

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?

"Start (schedule) an experiment" does give a verb and a resource, so the agent knows it acts on experiments. But with three siblings in the same family (ads.experiment.create, ads.experiment.promote, ads.experiment.end), nothing distinguishes whether the experiment must already exist, whether it launches immediately or at a future time, or how this differs from "create".

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus ads.experiment.create, promote, or end, and no prerequisites such as the experiment needing to be in a draft state. The parenthetical "(schedule)" hints at a timing nuance but leaves the agent to infer it.

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