create_responsive_search_ad

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 discloses the dry-run behavior ('Dry run unless confirm=true'), the mutation semantics, and that existing ads are unaffected. It does not cover authorization needs or post-confirm effects, but the core safety-relevant behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then brief parameter constraints. Each line adds necessary information, with no filler or repetition of schema titles.

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 the output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers the complex nested item formats, limits, status, and dry-run behavior. Minor gaps remain around path1/path2 semantics and explicit guidance on when to choose the update sibling, but the core invocation context is sufficiently complete.

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 adds meaningful detail for headlines and descriptions: item counts, character limits, allowed string/object shapes, and pin values. It also clarifies status and confirm semantics. However, path1, path2, final_url, and ID fields are left to their names and schema types.

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 a NEW responsive search ad in an ad group. It explicitly notes existing ads are untouched, which differentiates it from update_responsive_search_ad without needing to inspect sibling schemas.

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 communicates this tool is for creating new ads, not modifying existing ones ('existing ads are untouched'). It does not explicitly name update_responsive_search_ad as the alternative for updates, but the creation-focused wording makes the intended use clear.

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