create_search_campaign

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

The annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a write operation. The description adds value by specifying what gets created (campaign, ad group, keywords, responsive search ads), giving context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, or whether this incurs costs, which would be helpful for a destructive operation.

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 and lists key components without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope and components.

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 no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it specifies the tool's purpose, distinguishes it from siblings, and lists created components. However, it could better address behavioral context (e.g., costs, permissions) given the destructive nature and complexity of creating multiple ad components.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain keyword match types or geo target formats). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Create a Google Ads Search campaign with keywords') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for 'Search' campaigns (vs. display, PMax, LinkedIn, Meta, Reddit campaigns in the sibling list). It also details what gets created: campaign, ad group, keywords, and responsive search ads.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'Google Ads Search campaign with keywords' and listing components created, which helps differentiate from other campaign creation tools (e.g., create_display_campaign). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_pmax_campaign or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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