create_pmax_campaign

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

The annotation 'destructiveHint: true' already indicates this is a write operation that modifies state. The description adds value by specifying the required assets (images, headlines, descriptions, business name) which are behavioral prerequisites not captured in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other important behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on failure.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying both the action and key requirements. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from prerequisites for even better readability.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic context but lacks completeness. It mentions required assets but doesn't cover important aspects like what the tool returns, error conditions, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing to upload images first). The combination of destructive annotation and complex parameters warrants more comprehensive guidance.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all 12 parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning some required fields (images, headlines, descriptions, business name) but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('Google Ads Performance Max campaign'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_search_campaign' or 'create_display_campaign' by specifying the campaign type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other campaign creation tools beyond the type name.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool, only listing required assets (images, headlines, etc.) without explaining why Performance Max is chosen over alternatives like search or display campaigns. No explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or comparisons with sibling tools are provided, leaving usage context largely implicit.

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