google_ads_ads_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Mutating — not automatically reversible' and mentions return values (resource_name, id, initial approval_status) along with the typical approval timeline. It stops short of detailing error scenarios or prerequisites, but the critical mutation risk is clearly disclosed.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, return info, mutation warning + rollback, and format requirements + alternative. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler.

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 compensates by naming return fields and approval status. It also covers the rollback context and differentiates from the display ad tool. It relies on the fully covered schema for parameter details, which is acceptable, though it leaves out error behavior and authentication prerequisites.

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 already describes 100% of parameters with rich detail, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats headline/description counts but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions return values, which are not parameter-related, so it does not raise the score.

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 'Creates a Responsive Search Ad (RSA) in the specified ad group', providing a specific verb, resource, and container. It explicitly names the sibling alternative 'google_ads_ads_create_display' for display/banner ads, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance: it states the RSA format requirements (3–15 headlines, 2–4 descriptions), points to 'google_ads_ads_create_display' as the alternative for display ads, and advises using 'mureo_state_action_log_append' for rollback. This covers both selection and pre-call steps.

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