create_asset_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only repeats the tool's name ('Create asset group') with a context qualifier ('for Performance Max') and adds no information about side effects, required relationships, auth needs, or response behavior. The description essentially restates the name without explaining what creating an asset group entails.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word ('Create', 'asset group', 'for Performance Max') contributes to purpose clarity. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple nature.

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?

The description is too minimal for a creation tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema. It lacks context about the relationship to Performance Max campaigns, the role of finalUrls, and what the agent should expect after invocation. The schema covers parameters but the description does not provide operational context, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 75% (name, campaignId, customerId have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. The 'finalUrls' parameter lacks a schema description and is not clarified in the description, which is a gap, but the overall schema coverage is high enough that the description does not need to compensate heavily.

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 (create), the resource (asset group), and the context (for Performance Max). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ad_group or create_performance_max_campaign, and there is no other asset group creation tool among the siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as needing an existing Performance Max campaign, nor does it explain that asset groups are a required component of Performance Max campaigns. No alternatives or exclusions are noted.

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