ads_create_video_ad

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well by stating that ads are 'Created PAUSED' and that confirm must be true to apply while otherwise it is a dry-run. This discloses mutation safety and default state, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then prerequisites and format mapping, followed by a compact, complete Args list. Each line earns its place, and the formatting makes the information easy to scan for an AI agent.

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 10 parameters with zero schema coverage, the description fully documents all of them, plus prerequisite lookup advice, format constraints, default status, and dry-run behavior. An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. No critical usage gap remains.

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 compensate entirely. It does: every parameter is explained, including customer_id format, video_asset_id type, video_format allowed values, status choices, and confirm's dry-run behavior. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema field 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a video ad in a video ad group, linking an existing YouTube video asset.' This distinguishes it from siblings like ads_create_video_ad_group and ads_create_responsive_search_ad. The boundary is clear without needing to open any other schema.

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 strong usage context: the YouTube asset must already exist, its id should come from a GAQL asset query, and video_format must match the ad group type. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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