Create an ad under an ad group (created paused unless status is given)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description supplies far more: the created entity defaults to paused, execution is a dry run unless confirm: true is set, and the underlying write endpoint is named. It stops short of mentioning permissions, rate limits, or what the dry-run preview returns.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the resource, the default paused state, and the dry-run safety gate are all front-loaded before the endpoint citation.

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 mutation tool with a nested body, no output schema, and only 3 parameters, this covers the essentials an agent needs: what it creates, under what parent, and the dry-run-to-execute safety step. It lacks detail on the return payload and required body fields, but the schema carries those.

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 67% and the description adds essentially nothing beyond the schema—the 'created paused unless status is given' note duplicates the schema's status description. Body fields such as adGroupId, name, creativeId and destinationUrl are left to the nested schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create an ad under an ad group'), adds the key behavioral detail that it is created paused unless a status is given, and cites the endpoint (POST /v1/ads). It implicitly separates itself from ads_list/ads_update, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as ads_update or adGroups_create. The only implied guidance is that an adGroupId is needed (from schema) and that the tool defaults to a dry run.

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