cpp_build_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden, and 'LIVE writes: human approval' is genuinely important disclosure about reversibility and gating. However, it does not explain what approval_id must contain, what happens if it is omitted, whether reruns duplicate CPPs, or failure behavior.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: the core action and the returned URLs come first, context and the approval constraint follow. The telegraphic fragment style is efficient though slightly clipped.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value detail is not required, and the key constraint (live write + approval) is present. Still missing the approval_id contract and any note on idempotency or partial failure, which matters for a multi-step live write tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by documenting the themes element shape as {name, locale?} where the schema only says 'array of objects'. bundle_id and especially approval_id (the human-approval token) remain unexplained, leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create one CPP per Search Ads theme') and even sketches the internal sequence (create→version→localization) plus the side output (deep-link URLs). It does not name a sibling for contrast, so it falls short of a 5, but the operation is unmistakable.

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?

Gives the input-context hint that themes come from 'the theme/keyword clusters in the ASO output', which implies when to reach for this tool. It stops short of any when-not guidance or explicit alternatives (e.g. aso_scaffold_outputs), so usage is implied rather than stated.

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