Prepare a campaign for brand exclusions

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the exact mutation set (enable_ai_max, disable_search_term_matching across non-removed ad groups, both TEXT_ASSET_AUTOMATION opt-outs), what is deliberately NOT touched (bidding, keywords, match type, ads, URLs, budget), and that output is a preview with a plan_id requiring confirm_and_apply. That is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 purpose and the PREVIEW guarantee, then the exact settings and the no-other-changes list. Slightly verbose in the settings block, but each sentence (including the API doc link line) carries information.

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?

For a draft/preview tool with an output schema present, the description supplies everything needed: what changes, what does not, that output is a plan_id preview, and the confirm_and_apply follow-up. Return-value detail is correctly delegated to the output schema.

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 include_paused_ad_groups thoroughly. The description reinforces the scope ('all non-removed ad groups') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource (drafting the brand-exclusion preparation state for a campaign) and enumerates the exact settings it writes, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling drafters like draft_ai_max_settings or draft_campaign. It also explicitly separates itself from the attach step, making the scope 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?

It clearly routes the agent: attach 'stays a separate step with propose_brand_list / attach_brand_list_to_campaigns once this state is verified', and nothing applies until confirm_and_apply. It gives sequencing and named alternatives, though it does not spell out explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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