Assets Add Sitelinks

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context by noting that the sitelinks are attached to a campaign, but it does not go further into behavior like validation results or effects on existing assets.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by an actionable tip. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description provides the key operational detail an agent needs: the action, the target, and a best-practice count. It is slightly brief but sufficient for a moderate-complexity tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds one small recommendation about the number of sitelinks (at least 4), which is useful but does not substantially compensate or add beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource: it creates sitelink assets and attaches them to a campaign. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like assets_add_callouts and generic asset creation tools.

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 gives a clear use case and adds a practical recommendation (add at least 4 sitelinks for full effect). However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as assets_add_callouts or explain when to prefer this tool over another.

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