ads_apply_recommendation

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly warns that applying can change bids, budgets, keywords, or ads, and explains the confirm/dry-run behavior. It does not mention permissions or possible irreversibility, but the core mutation side-effect is disclosed.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and then transitions into a clean Args section. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 does not need to explain return values. It provides the essential operational knowledge for calling the tool correctly, though it stops short of explicitly warning that customer_id and resource_name are effectively required despite the schema showing defaults.

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 schema has zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining customer_id as a 10-digit account id, resource_name as the recommendation, and confirm as the applied-vs-dry-run switch. This adds real meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Apply'), a clear resource ('Google Ads Recommendation'), and references the source 'list_recommendations.' This distinguishes the tool from the many list/querying siblings and from other mutation tools in the set.

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 provides clear context by telling the agent where resource_name comes from and that the tool performs a dry-run unless confirm is true. It does not explicitly list 'when not to use' or name alternative tools (e.g., manual bid/budget updates), but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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