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 full burden. It discloses that the callout stops serving, the asset persists, and re-enabling requires google_ads_callouts_create. It also states the return format. This fully informs the agent of behavior beyond what the schema can convey.

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?

Three sentences: purpose+return, behavioral note, usage guidance+sibling reference. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose. No redundancy or verbose explanations. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, behavioral implications, return value, parameter sourcing hints, and alternative operations. 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by telling the agent how to obtain the campaign_id (via google_ads_campaigns_list) and asset_id (via google_ads_callouts_list), which is not present in the schema. This aids correct parameter selection.

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 action ('detach a callout asset'), the mechanism ('removing the CampaignAsset link'), and the return value ('{resource_name}'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like google_ads_callouts_create and google_ads_callouts_list by name, 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?

Explicitly states when to use (to detach a callout), warns about destructiveness, clarifies that the asset row is not deleted, and provides re-enabling instructions. It also names the sibling list operation explicitly, guiding the agent to the correct alternative.

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