add_business_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses that business_name becomes a TEXT asset, logo_path uploads a new asset while logo_asset_resource_name re-links an existing one, at least one input is required, and the operation is a dry run unless confirm=true.

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 compact yet information-dense, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes distinct value: purpose, business name behavior, logo options and constraints, input requirement, and dry-run semantics. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description provides all essential behavioral details needed to call it correctly: options, constraints, required input condition, and confirmation behavior. An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained in the description.

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 add meaning beyond parameter names. It thoroughly explains business_name, logo_path, logo_asset_resource_name, and confirm, including constraints and interplay. customer_id and campaign_id are not elaborated, but their roles are reasonably self-evident from their names and context.

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: 'Attach a business name and/or business logo to a Search campaign.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like add_keywords or add_image_assets by focusing on the two business asset types and their Google Ads linkage roles.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for adding business name and/or logo specifically to a Search campaign. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the scope is concrete enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the sibling tools.

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