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. It discloses the operation as 'Destructive' but clarifies the asset row is not deleted. It explains the return value and mentions the need for credentials (customer_id fallback). It could be improved by mentioning potential errors or permission requirements, but it adequately covers the main behavioral traits.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and return, explaining destructiveness and re-enabling, and directing to sibling. No unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 simple removal tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, side effects, return value, and alternatives. It could be more complete by mentioning error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., the campaign must have the callout attached), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling agents where to obtain the IDs (e.g., 'Obtain via google_ads_campaigns_list' for campaign_id, 'Obtain from the 'id' field of google_ads_callouts_list' for asset_id) and explaining customer_id fallback. This provides meaningful guidance 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Detach a callout asset from a Google Ads campaign by removing the CampaignAsset link.' It specifies the effect (stops serving but asset undeleted) and return value. It also distinguishes from siblings by naming the list operation and mentioning the create operation for re-enabling.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (to detach a callout) and points to the sibling list operation. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., if you only need to list callouts) by referencing the alternative. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or provide prerequisites.

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