add_ad_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavior context: the operation is atomic, it is a dry run unless confirm=true, and it targets an existing campaign. It does not mention return values, error cases, or rate limits, but the presence of an output schema lessens that need.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, packs the key input components into one clause, and adds two critical clarifications: the shape reference and the dry-run behavior. 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?

Given a 13-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete: it states the atomic create behavior, the dry-run safeguard, the existing-campaign constraint, and the relationship to create_search_campaign. It could be more explicit about what the dry-run response contains or what happens after confirm=true, but the output schema likely covers return details.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It identifies categories such as keywords, optional ad-group negatives, optional final URL suffix, and one responsive search ad, and points to create_search_campaign for exact argument shapes. However, individual parameters like status, path1, path2, and confirm are only partially explained, and several fields rely on self-explanatory names rather than explicit semantics.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add one ad group' with its keywords, optional negatives, optional final URL suffix, and one responsive search ad. It explicitly targets an EXISTING campaign, which distinguishes this tool from create_search_campaign and other sibling tools. The action and scope are unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly limits usage to existing campaigns ('to an EXISTING campaign') and references create_search_campaign's ad_groups shape, implicitly routing the agent to that sibling for whole-campaign creation. It also gives an important execution guideline: 'Dry run unless confirm=true.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over add_keywords or create_responsive_search_ad for partial updates.

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