set_campaign_final_url_suffix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dry-run behavior ('Dry run unless confirm=true'), the side-effect scope ('Ads, their text and history are untouched'), and the precedence behavior with ad-group/ad suffixes. This goes well beyond what the schema alone would tell an agent.

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 adds distinct value: the action, the URL-appending behavior, the override precedence, the no-side-effects guarantee, and the dry-run condition. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and remains compact despite covering multiple behavioral aspects.

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 tool is a single-purpose mutation with a simple schema. The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, parameter behavior, side effects, and the confirmation gate. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. No critical information for correctly invoking this tool 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 explains the final_url_suffix value format with ValueTrack tokens and the empty-string clearing behavior, and it clarifies the confirm parameter's dry-run effect. Customer_id and campaign_id are not elaborated, but their purpose is unambiguous from the tool name 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 action and resource: 'Set the CAMPAIGN-level final URL suffix, or clear it with ""'. It explicitly scopes the tool to campaign level, which distinguishes it from sibling set_final_urls and other campaign-level setters. The ValueTrack token example further clarifies what the suffix is for.

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 by explaining when the suffix applies ('at click time'), how it interacts with ad-group/ad suffixes ('An ad-group or ad suffix overrides the campaign's'), and advises keeping the suffix at one level. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a full 5.

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