add_sitelinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the safety-critical dry-run behavior ('Dry run unless confirm=true'), the ad-group override behavior, and Google's constraint about serving sitelinks with duplicate URLs. It could add more detail about what the dry run returns or auth requirements, but the most important behavioral traits are surfaced.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the parameter example, constraints, and safety behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, though the dry-run and uniqueness rules could arguably be placed earlier for maximum emphasis.

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?

The description sufficiently covers the main operations, parameter semantics, important constraints, and the confirm/dry-run safety mechanism. An output schema is present, so return-value documentation is not expected here. Minor gaps such as error conditions and broader account-level requirements prevent a perfect score.

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. It explains the sitelinks array item structure with field-level limits (link_text <=25, final_url, description1/2 <=35), clarifies confirm semantics and the optional ad_group_id behavior. customer_id and campaign_id are not elaborated, but their names and required status make them self-explanatory.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create sitelink assets and attach them to a campaign, or to one ad group.' It clearly distinguishes the two target attachment modes and the ad-group override behavior, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling asset tools like add_callouts or add_image_assets.

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 gives clear contextual usage for campaign-level versus ad-group-level attachment ('when ad_group_id is given') and explains the dry-run/confirm workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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