Add Location Targeting

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

Annotations are minimal (destructiveHint=false only), so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. 'Adds' implies an additive mutation consistent with the annotation, but the description does not say whether existing targeting is replaced or merged, whether permissions are required, or what a conflict does. It adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite. Zero filler; every sentence earns its place.

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, and schema coverage is complete. The prerequisite workflow is covered. It lacks mutation details (merge vs replace, permission needs) that would matter for a write tool with sparse annotations, so not a 5.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (including negative, validate_only, and the id format example 1013962). The description only reinforces the id-resolution requirement for `geo_target_ids`, which the schema itself covers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('Adds location targeting criteria to a campaign'), and explicitly names the sibling tool (`suggest_geo_targets`) it depends on rather than duplicating. An agent can distinguish this writer from the resolver and from `remove_campaign_criterion` and `add_negative_keywords` without opening schemas.

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?

Clear prerequisite: resolve human-readable places to ids via `suggest_geo_targets` first. This is an actionable routing instruction rather than generic advice. It stops short of an exclusion ('do not call with place names directly') or a when-not-to-use case, so it is not a full 5.

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