google_ads_assets_upload_image

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses the mutating nature, the lack of a delete tool, file validation constraints (max 5 MB, allowed extensions), and the side effect of reading a local file. It covers key behavioral aspects well.

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 efficiently structured with front-loaded purpose, followed by return details, mutability, validation, side effect, and follow-up tool. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (upload image file), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, return fields, validation, side effects, and post-upload step. No gaps remain.

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?

Although the input schema already has 100% description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the return format (resource_name, id, name), the default behavior for the 'name' parameter (fallback to basename), and clarifying the side effect of reading the file system.

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 specifies the action ('Upload'), resource ('local image file to Google Ads as an image Asset'), and usage context ('for use in Responsive Display Ads or image extensions'). It also details the return format, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

While there are no sibling asset tools requiring differentiation, the description explicitly names a follow-up tool ('google_ads_ads_create_display') for creating ads after asset upload, providing clear sequencing. It does not, however, state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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