Apply a Google Ads plan

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

Annotations already declare destructive, openWorld, and non-idempotent, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real operational semantics: locks are re-checked, ops run in order, execution stops at the first error, and everything is journaled. These are exactly the failure-mode and audit details an agent needs before firing a destructive call.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with a 'WRITE:' marker that flags the operation class instantly, followed by the required inputs and the execution guarantees. No wasted words.

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 no output schema but rich annotations, the description adequately covers execution behavior and failure semantics for a destructive apply. It could be slightly stronger by noting the journal's recovery/rollback path, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents plan_id, confirmation_token, and confirm. The description restates the exact-match requirement but adds little beyond the schema and says nothing about the optional client_id, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (apply) plus resource (a signed Google Ads plan) and immediately flags it as a WRITE operation. The phrase 'after the user approved it' and the reference to the 'plan_* tool' cleanly distinguish it from the sibling plan-creation tools and from rollback_plan.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('after the user approved it') and instructs passing the three values exactly as returned by the plan_* tool. It does not, however, name alternatives such as rollback_plan or plan_list, so an agent must infer the broader workflow.

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