direct_set_max_conv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the critical allow_write=true requirement (dry run vs live mutation) and the Network SERVING_OFF default. However, it does not mention prerequisites, reversibility, rate limits, or what happens to existing strategy settings, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely terse, packing key facts into a compact list of hints. No redundant words or filler. However, the telegraphic style sacrifices readability and some information is presented in a fragmented way (e.g., 'Unified/Text auto.'), making it less structured than an ideal description.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, error behavior, prerequisite conditions (e.g., campaign state), or the full effect of the operation. The few contextual hints are useful but leave large gaps for an agent to safely invoke the 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 description coverage is only 43%, but the description adds little beyond what is already in the schema. It maps 'GoalId' and 'WeeklySpendLimit' to parameters, and provides extra guidance on goal selection, but fails to explain dry_run, project constraints, bid_ceiling_rub, or campaign_id semantics, leaving most parameters underspecified.

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 signals a write operation for setting a maximum conversion rate strategy, referencing the specific strategy type (WB_MAXIMUM_CONVERSION_RATE) and key fields (GoalId, WeeklySpendLimit). However, it lacks an explicit verb phrase like 'sets' and the cryptic notation requires domain knowledge to fully parse.

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?

It provides some usage context (applicable to Search campaigns, Unified/Text auto, network serving off by default) and a selection heuristic ('Prefer payment goals over form alone'). But it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like direct_set_strategy or direct_set_network_weekly_budget, nor does it mention exclusions.

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