update_sd_target_state

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'guarded write' and 'preview', but does not explain the guard's requirements, whether changes are reversible, or what happens during preview. The introspection stub note is a limitation, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 very concise, fitting in one sentence with a prefix. However, the prefix '[Ads / guarded write]' is slightly cryptic, and the structure could be clearer by separating the behavior from the limitation.

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 lack of output schema and the tool's role (updating state), the description omits return value information, error scenarios, and permission requirements. It is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations.

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%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description's 'Preview or set' relates to the preview/dry_run parameters but adds no further semantics. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool previews or sets the Sponsored Display target state. The '[Ads / guarded write]' prefix and 'Hosted endpoint only' add context, distinguishing it from other tools. However, 'target state' could be more explicitly defined.

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 vs. alternatives like archive_sd_targets or update_sd_target_bids. It mentions it's an introspection stub, but does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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