update_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 burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the ad goes back through policy review, that asset performance labels and Ad Strength reset, that lists are replaced wholesale, that empty strings clear path fields, and that the operation is a dry run unless confirm=true. These are meaningful side effects beyond what the schema alone could communicate.

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 dense but every clause carries operational value. It front-loads the core purpose before diving into parameter-level rules. The single-paragraph format with long parentheticals is not as scannable as bulleted rules, but there is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant information.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is unusually complete. It covers the in-place update behavior, resulting side effects, list constraints, item shapes, resource-name format, clearing behavior, and the dry-run confirmation gate. Since an output schema exists, not describing return values in prose is acceptable, and nothing essential is left to dangerous inference.

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 valuable semantics for ad_id, headlines, descriptions, path1, path2, and confirm. final_url and customer_id are not elaborated in the description, but 'Every argument left None is unchanged' provides a useful default semantic for all optional parameters, and final_url/customer_id are reasonably self-explanatory from their names.

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 action ('Edit an EXISTING responsive search ad in place') on a concrete resource and distinguishes itself from create functionality by emphasizing that the ad keeps its id and reporting history. This is far from a tautology and makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 phrase 'EXISTING' plus the detail that the ad keeps its id and reporting history clearly implies this tool is for modifying an already-created ad rather than creating a new one. The dry-run/confirm behavior also tells the agent when a real change will be committed. It does not explicitly name create_responsive_search_ad as the alternative, but the context is clear enough.

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