Set Campaign Conversion Goals

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

Only destructiveHint=true is annotated, and the description adds crucial behavioral detail beyond that: this switches the campaign into campaign-level goal configuration (a mode change), and it must be called with every category/origin combination in the account, marking non-target goals biddable=false. That replace-style requirement is exactly the kind of consequence the annotation alone cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the override semantics followed by the use-case trigger and the enumeration requirement. Dense but every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 mutation tool, the description covers purpose, the when-to-use condition, and the non-obvious completeness requirement for the goals array. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: the goals array must enumerate every existing category/origin pair rather than just the desired ones, which is not evident from the schema alone. It does not add format detail beyond the enum examples already in the schema.

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 (overrides) and resource (per-campaign conversion goals for Smart Bidding), and immediately scopes the behavior as distinct from account-level primary/secondary settings. An agent can distinguish this from set_conversion_action_primary without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit triggering scenario: use when account-level conversion actions cannot be edited (system-generated 'Local actions') but the campaign must optimize only to real outcomes. It contrasts with account-level configuration, though it does not name a sibling tool as the alternative, so it stops just short of a 5.

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