update_sb_ad_group_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'guarded write' and 'preview or set', which suggest preview and apply behavior, but does not explain what 'guarded' means, what the side effects are, or any failure conditions. The 'introspection stub' note indicates it may not perform real operations, but this is vague.

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, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the key action and resource in brackets and then adds necessary context. Every word is informative with no 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema), the description covers the high-level purpose but lacks details on expected behavior, return values, or prerequisites. The 'introspection stub' note is helpful context, but overall completeness is average. It does not explain how to use the 'changes' array or the effect of setting state.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the default baseline is 3. The description adds some context with 'Preview or set', which aligns with the 'preview' and 'dry_run' parameters, but does not elaborate on other parameters like 'changes', 'reason', or 'marketplace_id'. The schema descriptions already cover their meanings, so the description provides no additional insight beyond that.

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 ('Preview or set') and the resource ('Sponsored Brands ad group state'). It distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_sd_ad_group_state' by specifying 'Sponsored Brands'. The verb-resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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. It mentions 'Hosted endpoint only' and 'introspection stub', hinting at testing scenarios, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other tools like 'archive_sb_ad_groups' or 'update_sb_ad_state'. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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