google_ads_ad_groups_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is mutating, not automatically reversible, performs partial updates, and does not cascade to ads or keywords. It also clarifies behavior for status-only changes. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about side effects.

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 concise, with each sentence serving a purpose. It front-loads the core action ('Updates...') and then adds incremental detail: partial update, return value, rollback caution, cascade limitations, and status-edge-case. No redundant or missing content.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately states it returns the updated ad group. It covers mutation, partial update, rollback, and non-cascade behavior—all critical for safe invocation. The tool has 5 parameters with 1 required, and the description provides enough context for correct use.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by noting that for status-only changes this tool is equivalent and there's no separate update_status call. This provides context beyond the schema, especially for the status parameter. A perfect score would require even more specific examples or constraints.

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 'Updates one or more settings on an existing ad group,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like google_ads_ad_groups_create and google_ads_ad_groups_list by emphasizing partial update and mutability. References to related tools for ads and keywords further clarify 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?

The description includes explicit usage guidance: partial update, rollback recommendation via mureo_state_action_log_append, and a note that status-only changes can be done here (no separate update_status call). It mentions alternative tools for cascading to ads/keywords. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if cascade is needed), which would improve clarity.

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