google_ads_ad_groups_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses mutability, reversibility via rollback_apply (with a note that rollback pauses rather than deletes), and constraints on the parent campaign's status. It does not cover rate limits or authentication details, but the key behavioral traits are addressed.

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 only four sentences, starting with the main action, then return values, behavioral notes, prerequisites, and next steps. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately lists return values (resource_name and id). It covers the tool's role in the workflow (after campaign creation, before adding ads/keywords) and important behavioral context. Additional details like error handling or naming constraints are omitted, but the description is sufficient for a creation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, providing solid parameter descriptions. The description adds context about customer_id fallback and cpc_bid_micros optionality, but these are already in the schema. It does not significantly enhance beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Creates a new ad group inside an existing campaign,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling creation tools by focusing on ad groups and mentions associated next steps (add ads with google_ads_ads_create, keywords with google_ads_keywords_add).

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 context for when to use this tool (when creating an ad group) and includes prerequisites (parent campaign must be ENABLED or PAUSED). It also hints at the workflow by suggesting next steps. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or specify when not to use, but the context is clear.

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