google_ads_assets_upload_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavioral traits: mutating (creates a new Asset row), removal must be done via UI, file validation (max 5MB, specific extensions), side effect of reading file_path from local filesystem, and POSTing bytes to Google. Thorough and accurate.

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?

Description is concise (4 sentences), well-structured, and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return format, validation, side effect, and follow-up tool. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists return fields. It covers validation, side effects, removal caveat, and next steps. All essential information for an agent to successfully invoke this tool is present.

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% but description adds significant meaning: customer_id defaults from credentials, file_path requires absolute/relative path and validation constraints, name defaults to basename. All parameters are explained with helpful context beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool uploads a local image file to Google Ads as an image Asset for use in Responsive Display Ads or image extensions. It specifies verb 'upload', resource 'image Asset', and context. Sibling tools include other uploads like meta_ads_images_upload_file, but differentiation is clear due to Google Ads 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?

Description includes explicit guidance: 'For creating the ad that references this asset afterwards use google_ads_ads_create_display.' It implies when to use this tool (for image assets) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative asset types (e.g., for callouts). Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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