Apply a GA4, Search Console, Merchant, GTM plan

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, yet the description adds execution semantics beyond them: locks are re-checked, ops run in order, execution halts on first error, and everything is journaled. It also imposes a token-integrity constraint (pass values exactly as returned), which is real behavioral guidance not present in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded 'WRITE:' marker followed by two dense sentences; every clause earns its place by covering scope, precondition, parameter integrity, and execution/failure semantics with no filler.

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 a destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical facts (approval gate, exact token passing, lock re-check, ordered execution, stop-on-error, journaling). It could go further by noting how to verify the result (audit_log) or undo it (rollback_plan), which keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a meaningful constraint beyond the schema: plan_id, confirmation_token and confirm must be passed 'exactly as the plan_* tool returned them,' which conveys a provenance/integrity requirement the field descriptions do not state.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and object ('WRITE: apply a signed plan') and enumerates the exact platforms it covers (GA4, Search Console, Merchant, GTM), which distinguishes it from the sibling apply tools (gads_apply, meta_apply, openai_ads_apply). An agent can route to it without opening any schema.

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?

States a clear precondition ('after the user approved it') and implies the plan_* -> apply workflow by requiring the exact values the plan_* tool returned. It does not name when NOT to use it nor point to rollback_plan/audit_log as follow-ups, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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