Draft sitelinks

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

The description clearly conveys that the tool creates a draft and returns a preview, and that actual execution requires a separate confirm_and_apply call. This explains the side-effect (non-destructive, non-read-only) beyond the minimal annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 clear lead line, parameter breakdown, recommendation, and execution note. It is reasonably concise, though the parameter list is somewhat repetitive with the schema. Every element adds value, and no extraneous content is present.

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 drafting tool, the description covers the purpose, input parameters, a usage constraint, and the next step (confirm_and_apply). It does not detail the output schema or error scenarios, but given the presence of an output schema and the straightforward drafting nature, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The description explains the two required parameters (campaign_id and sitelinks) and the subfields of each sitelink item (link_text, final_url, description1, description2). However, it omits the optional customer_id parameter, and the schema has zero description coverage, so a small gap remains. Overall, the key parameters are well explained.

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 function: drafting sitelink extensions for a campaign and returning a preview. It also distinguishes itself from related drafting tools by the resource type (sitelinks) and the explicit workflow of confirming with confirm_and_apply.

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?

Provides some usage guidance (Google recommends at least 4 sitelinks, fewer than 2 may not show, and the need to call confirm_and_apply to execute), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like draft_callouts or draft_structured_snippets. The purpose is clear from the name, but explicit when/when-not guidance is absent.

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