add_structured_snippet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It prominently reveals the dry-run behavior ('Dry run unless confirm=true') and includes validation constraints (3-10 values, each <=25 chars). This goes well beyond the schema, though it does not cover permissions or post-creation effects.

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?

A single sentence conveys the core action, validation rules, examples, and the confirmation behavior. Every element earns its place and the critical dry-run note comes at the end, keeping the main purpose front-loaded.

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 parameter-rich creation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: what is created, where it is attached, validation limits, and the confirmation requirement. It does not discuss alternative tools or error scenarios, but an output schema exists and the description is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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. It explains header with examples, constrains values by count and length, clarifies confirm as a dry-run gate, and indicates campaign_id via 'attach it to a campaign.' customer_id is left to inference, but overall it compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create one structured-snippet asset' and says it 'attach[es] it to a campaign.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_sitelinks and add_callouts, even without naming them.

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?

Usage context is implied by the resource type: use this when you need a structured-snippet asset. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over a sibling asset tool or mention any exclusions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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