google_ads_upload_pmax_assets

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

The description contradicts the input schema: it claims 'All parameters are optional' but customer_id and asset_group_id are marked required in the schema. This is a critical inconsistency. Beyond that, it only mentions AI mixing behavior, lacking details on side effects, error handling, or what happens to existing assets. With no annotations to fall back on, the description fails to disclose key behaviors.

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 well-structured with a brief intro, bullet-pointed parameters, and an example. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, the misleading statement about parameter optionality adds unnecessary confusion, costing a slight deduction.

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 complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description lacks essential context: it does not explain whether assets are appended or replaced, what happens on duplicate names, or error scenarios. It also omits prerequisites like having an existing asset group. The contradiction further undermines completeness. While output schema reduces need for return value details, other gaps remain.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section adds significant meaning: format of customer_id (10 digits, no hyphens), character limits (headlines max 30 chars, up to 15; descriptions max 90 chars, up to 5; long headlines max 90 chars, up to 5), and an example. This goes well beyond the bare schema types. The optionality error slightly detracts but does not affect the parameter descriptions themselves.

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's purpose: 'Upload text assets to a Performance Max asset group.' It specifies the resource (PMax asset group) and action (upload), and lists the asset types (headlines, descriptions, long headlines). This distinguishes it from other upload tools like offline conversions or call conversions, making purpose 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 provides usage guidance by stating 'All parameters are optional - provide only the asset types you want to add,' which instructs on partial usage. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs. google_ads_create_asset_group or other upload tools) and does not mention when not to use or prerequisites. The guidance is present but minimal.

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