generic_mutate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical dry-run default and the need for confirm=True to execute, which is essential safety information. However, it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or error handling, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: statement of purpose, usage condition, and execution behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition.

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 generic advanced tool with many parameters and nested objects, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavior (dry-run). The output schema covers return values. The proto-structure requirement sets appropriate expectations. It could add a brief example, but the schema mitigates that need.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general reference to 'API proto structure,' so it doesn't enhance the schema's semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a generic mutate operation for resource types lacking dedicated tools ('...not covered by specific tools'). It uses a specific verb ('modify') and resource ('resource type') and distinguishes it from sibling-specific write tools by stating its intended niche.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you need to modify a resource type that doesn't have a dedicated write tool' and implies when not to (if a dedicated tool exists). Also notes a prerequisite: 'Requires understanding the Google Ads API proto structure.'

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