google_ads_ads_create_display

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the tool is mutating and not automatically reversible, advises recording before-state for rollback, explains the automatic image upload to ImageAssets, and discloses the failure mode on channel mismatch. This gives the agent a complete safety and behavior picture.

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 five sentences, each with a distinct and necessary role: purpose, image handling, return values, mutation/rollback warning, and alternative usage. It is entirely front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundant 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 no output schema, the description explains return values (resource_name, id, generated asset IDs). It also covers the mutation warning, rollback path, and channel requirement. For an 11-parameter create tool, this is sufficient to invoke correctly even without output schema details.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it only restates that image paths are local and uploaded automatically, which the schema already details per-field. No additional semantic value for parameters is provided.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a Responsive Display Ad (RDA) in a DISPLAY campaign's ad group.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling google_ads_ads_create for Search campaigns, so an agent can correctly match intent.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use an alternative: 'For Search campaigns use google_ads_ads_create.' Also gives a hard precondition: the ad_group must belong to a DISPLAY campaign or the call fails with a channel-mismatch error, which is crucial for avoiding failed invocations.

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