Update ad group

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). Description adds context about money fields being in account currency and points to sibling for status changes. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format. With annotations present, it provides moderate added value.

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?

Two efficient sentences. First sentence delivers purpose and scope (list of updatable fields, currency note). Second sentence provides key usage guidance. No filler. Front-loaded with primary 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?

No output schema exists, so description should cover return behavior or errors. It does not. It also doesn't explain partial update behavior (only provided fields are updated) or validation of nested objects (extra, targetings). For an 8-parameter tool with nested structures, more context would be beneficial. However, schema covers all parameters, so baseline is adequate.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description merely lists field categories ('name, budgets, bid cap, dates or targeting'), which is redundant. It adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides. Not harmful but unnecessary.

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 updates an ad group's specific fields (name, budgets, bid cap, dates, targeting). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'ad_group_action' for status changes. The verb 'Updates' + resource 'ad group' is precise.

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 explicitly directs to use 'ad_group_action' for status changes, providing a clear alternative. It implies this tool is for non-status updates but does not explicitly state when not to use it. Needs more exclusion criteria but sufficient for differentiation.

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