direct_add_ads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly marks this as a WRITE operation, discloses the need for allow_write=true to mutate, and provides concrete rules: maximum 3 ads per group, character limits (Title ≤56, Title2 ≤30, Text ≤81), and content restrictions ('No ₽·— VPN in copy'). This is substantial behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't mention response format or error 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?

The description is compact and dense, using a technical shorthand that efficiently conveys the ad structure and rules. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('WRITE: ads.add TextAd') followed by structured constraints. Slightly unstructured due to the mix of prose and code-like notation, but every part earns its place.

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 covers the core ads parameter very well, but leaves gaps: the dry_run parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the tool's return value/behavior on success is not mentioned. The schema descriptions for project, moderate, and allow_write partially compensate, but with no output schema, some operational context is still missing.

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 description adds significant meaning to the 'ads' parameter by enumerating its fields, marking optional ones with '?', and imposing length constraints and content restrictions. The schema only provides types for these nested fields, so the description fills a major gap. It also reinforces the allow_write parameter's requirement. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'WRITE: ads.add TextAd' which clearly specifies the action (adding TextAds) and the API method. It lists the exact fields for the ads array, distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like direct_add_adgroups or direct_add_keywords. The scope is unambiguous.

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 by stating it adds TextAds and includes constraints like 'Max 3 ads/group on UNIFIED' and 'allow_write=true' as a requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., for image ads use a different tool). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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