Ad group action

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by mapping each action to a specific status (active, blocked, deleted). Annotations already mark it as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not idempotent, which aligns with the delete action. No contradictions.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and parameter meaning without any superfluous words. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It could optionally mention that the operation is irreversible for delete, but that is implied by the destructive annotation.

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 schema has 50% description coverage (ids parameter described, action parameter not). The description compensates by explaining the meaning of each action value, which adds value beyond the schema's enum definition.

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 changes the lifecycle status of ad groups by id, specifying three actions (activate, stop, delete) and their corresponding status values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ad_plan_action (different resource) and update_ad_group (likely for other modifications).

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 usage for lifecycle management of ad groups, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_ad_group or create_ad_group. However, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer its specific purpose.

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