update_sb_target_state

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

The description discloses it is a 'guarded write' and an 'introspection stub,' indicating it does not execute real operations. However, it lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or what 'guarded' entails. Without annotations, the description carries the burden and is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences and efficiently conveys purpose and key context. It is front-loaded with the action. A minor improvement could integrate the stub note more seamlessly, but overall it is concise and clear.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and behavioral note but omits return format, error handling, or guard details. For a stub tool, it is adequate but incomplete for a production context.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the 'changes' parameter described as 'high-level desired changes.' No additional constraints or usage tips are provided, so baseline 3.

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 it previews or sets Sponsored Brands target state, with 'Ads / guarded write' providing context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_sb_target_bids by focusing on state rather than bids, but could be more explicit about the exact action (e.g., enabling/disabling).

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 mentions 'guarded write' and 'stub' providing some usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other update_* tools like update_sb_ad_group_state. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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