settings

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

Although annotations are absent, the description discloses MODE (mixed read/write), AUTH (OAuth required), and CREDITS (0 credits). However, it does not explicitly state the destructiveness of delete operations in the main description; these details appear only in the input schema parameter descriptions.

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 well-structured with clear labeled sections (MODE, AUTH, CREDITS, OUTPUT, WHEN TO USE). It is front-loaded with purpose and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has multiple sub-actions and no output schema, the description covers usage context, output format, and sibling differentiation. However, it lacks details on error handling or edge cases (e.g., deleting a non-existent preset).

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 100%, with detailed enum descriptions for 'action' and a clear description for 'network_code'. The main description adds little beyond summarizing the action categories, so it meets the baseline but does not add significant extra meaning.

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 clearly states the tool manages OrbiAds tenant settings, naming conventions, delivery defaults, and configuration presets. It differentiates from sibling 'network' by specifying that network-level GAM settings should use that tool.

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 includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section that explicitly tells users to use this tool for tenant-level defaults and to use the 'network' tool for network-level GAM settings. It also provides AUTH and CREDITS context.

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