google_ads_set_campaign_url_suffix

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

The description indicates that the tool performs a write operation (updates campaign) and mentions that passing an empty string clears the suffix. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or idempotency. For a straightforward update, the disclosure is adequate but not 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 brief: one sentence stating purpose, followed by an Args block with clear parameter explanations, and a Returns line. Every element serves a purpose, no fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 simple params, update operation) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown in input), the description covers the essential behavior and parameter details. It could be improved by noting that the tool modifies existing campaign settings without affecting other configurations, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It clearly defines customer_id (without hyphens), campaign_id, and url_suffix with usage guidance (e.g., example URL parameters and how to clear). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and title fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('Final URL suffix for a campaign'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like google_ads_set_ad_group_url_suffix, which targets ad groups instead of campaigns. The purpose 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 explains what the tool does (sets URL suffix for campaign) and provides an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like the ad group suffix tool or the batch versions. No usage exclusions or context are given, leaving the decision to the agent based on implicit knowledge.

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