remove_entity

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 exceptionally well: it discloses permanence ('no restore'), the atomic-mutate behavior for lists, the managed-label guardrail, the dry-run default, and the subtle distinction between removing an asset link versus the asset itself. An agent can predict exactly what side effects will occur.

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?

Every sentence delivers critical operational information: scope, resource_name semantics, label requirement, permanence, and dry-run behavior. The most important warning ('PERMANENTLY remove') is front-loaded, and the length is justified for a destructive, irreversible operation.

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 covers all essential aspects: allowable entity types, resource name formats, batch behavior, mutation atomicity, the managed-label prerequisite, irreversibility, and confirmation/dry-run semantics. Because an output schema exists, not describing return values is acceptable. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool safely is missing.

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 meaningfully explains that resource_name accepts one name or a list of names of the SAME kind, and that confirm gates the dry-run. It does not explain customer_id, but its purpose is self-evident from the name and Google Ads context. This is strong compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'PERMANENTLY remove' and explicitly enumerates the exact entity types (campaign, ad group, ad, keyword, campaign criterion, asset LINK). It clearly distinguishes the destructive remove operation from the mutation and creation siblings, and clarifies that asset links are removed while the asset itself remains in the library.

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 strong usage context: removal is atomic for a list of the same kind, requires the managed label, and is irreversible. It also states the dry-run behavior unless confirm=true. It does not name an alternative for non-destructive changes, but given the sibling set contains no other remove tool, the intended use is clear enough.

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