Update mediation group

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

The description adds the required admob.monetization scope, which is not present in annotations (only readOnlyHint: false). It also communicates partial-update semantics via 'Patches' and the updateMask example, providing useful behavioral context beyond the minimal annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. The example and scope requirement are included without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool has 3 required parameters, a nested object, and a field mask pattern; the description adequately explains the usage pattern and required scope. It does not mention return values, but this is a patch operation where the response is likely the updated resource, and no output schema is provided.

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%, and the description enhances understanding by explicitly linking mediationGroup and updateMask, clarifying how they work together. The example 'display_name,targeting.ad_unit_ids' adds practical value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 begins with 'Patches a mediation group', which is a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating an update operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_mediation_group (create) and list_mediation_groups (read) by focusing on patching existing groups.

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 clearly implies usage for updating existing mediation groups and provides practical instructions (pass fields in mediationGroup, list paths in updateMask). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, 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.