Draft negative locations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but do not convey the two-phase behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context: the call produces a PREVIEW with a plan_id and mutates nothing until confirm_and_apply is invoked.

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?

Front-loads the most important fact ('returns a PREVIEW') and keeps the body tight across three short segments. The trailing Google Ads API URL is marginally useful reference rather than wasted space.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the preview/confirm workflow it explains, the agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents campaign_id, customer_id and geo_target_ids in detail. The description reinforces the geo-exclusion concept but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Draft negative geo location additions') and clarifies the scope with a concrete example (excluding cities/regions while keeping 'State of Sao Paulo'). The 'negative geo' qualifier distinguishes it from other draft_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

Explains the draft workflow clearly: it returns a preview and 'nothing changes until confirm_and_apply applies it', which tells the agent when this tool is the right step and what must follow. It does not name explicit exclusions or competing siblings, but the context is sufficient to route correctly.

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