ads_create_ad_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It goes beyond the schema by disclosing that confirm must be true to apply and that otherwise it is a dry-run, which is a crucial side-effect trait. It does not cover auth or permissions, but the dry-run/apply behavior is meaningfully transparent.

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: a single purpose sentence followed by a clean Args list. Every line earns its place, and the most important behavioral note (confirm/dry-run) is included without padding.

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?

The description covers all parameters and the dry-run behavior, and an output schema exists so return values are covered. However, it leaves requiredness ambiguous (the schema lists 0 required params while the description only marks default_cpc_bid optional) and does not address when to choose this over the video ad group sibling.

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 0%, but the description compensates for every parameter: customer_id is a 10-digit account id, campaign_id is the parent campaign, default_cpc_bid is optional and for manual bidding, status is ENABLED|PAUSED, and confirm triggers the dry-run vs. apply behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 clear action and resource: 'Create an ad group inside a campaign.' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ads_create_video_ad_group, but the resource wording is specific enough for a standard ad group, and the parameter list clarifies its scope.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ads_create_video_ad_group. The description implies usage by stating its purpose, but it never states prerequisites, exclusions, or selection conditions.

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