google_ads_callouts_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and excels: it discloses the two-step mutate, return value/error structure, reversibility, duplicate asset creation on identical text, and the campaign limit. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure beyond any structured data.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core action first, then return behavior, error case, reversibility, duplicate caveat, and alternative tool. Every sentence is informative and earns its place, with no 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (resource_name, error object) and covers all necessary operational details: mutation, limits, duplicates, and alternatives. It is fully complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with all parameters fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does enrich context about duplicates/limits, but that is behavioral, not parameter semantics.

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 the tool's action ('Create a callout Asset and link it to a Google Ads campaign') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sitelink creation by naming the alternative tool, 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives ('For sitelink variants use google_ads_sitelinks_create'), notes reversibility via google_ads_callouts_remove, and highlights the 20-callout limit as a constraint. This gives the agent clear decision-making context.

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