Draft clearing a custom conversion goal

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that nothing is mutated yet — it returns a preview whose plan_id is later applied via confirm_and_apply — and scopes exactly what changes (custom goal cleared, account-level goals untouched). This meaningfully clarifies the draft/apply lifecycle, though it doesn't address permissions or any limits.

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-loaded with the core action and preview status, then the mechanism, the rollback relationship, and the plan_id handoff. Each sentence carries weight; the trailing API reference link is mild filler but low-cost.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation scope, preview semantics, and the confirm_and_apply workflow. It is complete for correct invocation, with only minor room to say when this should not be chosen over other goal-config tools.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description explains the effect on the campaign but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 action (put a campaign back on account-level goals), the mechanism (sets goal_config_level=CUSTOMER and clears the custom goal), and frames it as a PREVIEW. It explicitly names the sibling it reverses (draft_assign_custom_conversion_goal), so an agent can distinguish it from the surrounding draft_* conversion-goal tools.

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 rollback framing gives clear context for when to use it, and it names the follow-up tool (confirm_and_apply) that applies the plan_id. It does not spell out an explicit 'when not to use' or compare against other custom-conversion-goal siblings, so it falls just short of the top band.

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