Raw mutate

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

The description discloses destructive behavior through 'create/update/remove' and mentions atomicity and dry-run validation, going beyond the annotations. It does not detail error response shapes or partial-failure result handling, but the provided guidance is sufficient for a raw mutation tool.

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 compact and well-structured, including a concrete example, scope, and usage cautions in just a few sentences. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 advanced and open-ended nature, the description covers the essential aspects: syntax, supported resources, validation flow, and failure semantics. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the description focuses on request construction and side effects.

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 compensates for the sparse schema by explaining the operations parameter with a concrete camelCase example and clarifies validate_only and partial_failure behavior. customer_id is already described in the schema, while validate_only and partial_failure are implied through the text.

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 explicitly states 'send raw GoogleAdsService.mutate operations using REST field names', which clearly identifies the tool's function and resource scope. It also contrasts with sibling tools by labeling itself 'Advanced' and covering 'every resource the API can create/update/remove'.

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 direct guidance: use camelCase field names, 'Use validate_only: true first to dry-run', and notes atomicity unless partial_failure is true. This effectively advises when and how to use the tool relative to the more specific sibling operations.

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