create_sp_ad_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It labels the tool as a 'guarded write' (indicating potential authorization requirements) and explicitly states that the local server is an 'introspection stub' for a hosted endpoint. However, it does not detail what happens on invocation (e.g., error or description of the real call), rate limits, or state changes beyond creation.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus a clarifying suffix. It uses a bracketed tag for immediate context, then explains the stub nature. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters with 100% schema coverage, the description fails to provide crucial context for the open-ended 'changes' parameter (array of objects with additionalProperties). It does not specify expected input patterns, validation rules, or return values. The tool is a stub, but the description does not clarify what the agent should expect as a response, leaving gaps for effective use.

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 all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the 'preview or create' behavior, which relates to the 'preview' and 'dry_run' parameters. The schema handles the parameter explanations, so the description does not significantly enhance semantics.

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 verb-resource pair: 'Preview or create Sponsored Products ad groups'. It also includes the distinction 'Sponsored Products', differentiating it from sibling tools for SB and SD ad groups. The mention of 'hosted endpoint' provides additional context.

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 two modes (preview or create) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like archive_sp_ad_groups or create_sb_ad_groups. There is no guidance on prerequisites or alternatives. The 'guarded write' tag hints at a write operation, but usage context is minimal.

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