ads_create_responsive_search_ad

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses that the ad is 'Created PAUSED by default,' that the confirm flag is a dry-run gate ('must be true to apply'), and that Google policy imposes headline/description limits. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the simple creation action.

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-organized with sections for policy limits, args, and behavior. It is slightly repetitive (limits are stated in the header and then re-stated in the arg list), but every section adds useful detail for a 9-parameter tool, so it remains appropriately concise.

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 complex creation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete: it covers all parameter semantics, validation limits, default status, dry-run behavior, and required confirm flag. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed here.

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%, so the description must fully compensate—and it does. It explains every parameter: customer_id, ad_group_id, final_url, headlines (3-15, <=30 chars), descriptions (2-4, <=90 chars), optional path1/path2 (<=15 chars), status values (ENABLED|PAUSED), and confirm semantics. This far exceeds schema-only info.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Responsive Search Ad (RSA) in an ad group.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like ads_create_ad_group and ads_create_video_ad, and leaves no ambiguity about what object is being created.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when creating an RSA with headlines, descriptions, and a final URL. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for video ads use ads_create_video_ad'), so it falls just short of a 5, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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