Ads recommendations dismiss

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 covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say dismissals may be irreversible, whether the batch of resource names is atomic, or what 'confirm' controls.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing needs trimming. The problem is the opposite of verbosity — the sentence is too thin to earn its place as the sole guidance for a destructive batch mutation.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent, multi-resource mutation the description omits essentially all operational context: batching/failure semantics, the meaning of 'confirm', and any prerequisite step. The output schema covers return values, but the input-side picture is left almost entirely to the agent's guesswork.

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 carry parameter meaning and it does not: customer_id is unmentioned, resource_names' expected format (customers/{id}/recommendations/{id}) is unspecified, and the optional 'confirm' string/null parameter is completely unexplained. A single clause 'by resource name' is the only semantic contribution across three undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Dismiss') and resource ('Google Ads recommendations') plus the addressing key ('by resource name'), which lets an agent distinguish this from ads.recommendations.list and ads.recommendations.apply without opening a schema.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to fetch candidates first via ads.recommendations.list, nothing contrasts dismiss with ads.recommendations.apply, and no prerequisites or constraints are given. The only usable cue is the implicit need to already have resource names.

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