Creative pmax pack

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by noting the copy is 'validated' and images are fitted to specific ad dimensions, telling the agent output is ad-ready rather than raw text. It says nothing about whether generation is slow, costly, or how the language/scene choices affect output, leaving moderate gaps for an open-world generative tool.

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 that names the artifact first and then the deliverables and their dimensions; no filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a five-parameter generative tool with zero schema coverage the description is too thin — required inputs (product, audience) and optional knobs (scenes, language, with_images) are unexplained. An agent cannot tell what product/audience strings should contain or how many scenes it may request.

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 five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it: 'product', 'audience', 'scenes', 'language' (default French) and 'with_images' are never explained or mapped to outputs. Only a weak implicit link exists between 'images' in the description and the with_images 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?

States a specific verb and artifact ('Generate a Performance Max pack') and enumerates the returned assets — headlines, long headlines, descriptions, images fitted to 1200x628/1200x1200 — which sets it apart from adjacent creative tools like vertex.gemini.generate_ad_copy or creative.search_ads. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not, so 5 is not warranted.

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 statement of when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., gemini.generate_ad_copy for copy, vertex.imagen.generate for images, ads.campaign.create_pmax for the actual campaign build), and no prerequisites such as needing a product feed or brand assets. Usage is only inferable from the name 'pmax'.

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