google_ads_set_campaign_languages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions common language IDs but does not disclose whether setting languages replaces or merges with existing ones, or if any permissions are required. This is partial transparency.

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 concise—8 lines total. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by parameter definitions, return info, and a helpful note. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 output schema exists, so the vague return description is acceptable. The description covers the core use case and provides a handy reference for language IDs. However, it omits details about error conditions or whether the operation is additive or replacement.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds value by clarifying that customer_id should be 'without hyphens' and listing common language codes. However, campaign_id lacks explanation, and language_codes format is only implied by examples.

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 sets language targeting for a campaign. The verb 'set' combined with the resource 'language targeting' leaves no ambiguity about the function. It is distinct from sibling tools like set_campaign_locations or set_campaign_schedule.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use set_campaign_languages vs. adding languages via other methods). There is no mention of prerequisites, conflicts, or best practices for language targeting.

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