google_ads_callouts_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags the operation as destructive, explains the precise blast radius (the callout stops serving but the Asset row survives), and states the return value ({resource_name} of the removed association). It omits whether the call is idempotent, what happens on a missing link, and any permission/approval requirements — gaps that keep it at 4 for a mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it returns, the destructive scope, and the reversal + sibling routing. The most decision-relevant fact (detach vs. delete) is front-loaded.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, side effects, return shape, and reversal. It is slightly incomplete on the workflow plumbing — the reason/approval/expected/decision_id params are journal/audit metadata the description never situates in the workflow — but nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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%, including usage notes on campaign_id ('obtain via google_ads_campaigns_list') and asset_id ('obtain from the id field of google_ads_callouts_list'), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (detach/remove), the exact resource (the CampaignAsset link between a callout asset and a campaign), and distinguishes the underlying Asset row from the association that is deleted. An agent can tell it apart from google_ads_callouts_create and google_ads_callouts_list without opening any schema.

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?

Provides clear context: use this to detach a callout from a campaign, and names google_ads_callouts_list as the sibling for listing. It also gives the re-enable path (callouts_create with the same text), which is a genuine usage condition. It stops short of explicit 'when not to use' or prerequisites such as required approval, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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