google_ads_callouts_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the destructive nature: 'Destructive — the callout stops serving on the campaign but the Asset row itself is not deleted.' It also mentions the return value and the re-enabling path, providing substantial behavioral context.

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 sentences, each earning its place: action, return value, destruction semantics, and sibling guidance. Front-loaded with the action verb, no fluff or 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?

For a removal tool with no output schema and moderate parameter count, the description covers the action, effect, re-enabling, and sibling alternative. The return format is disclosed. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described (source, format, fallback). The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the notion of a CampaignAsset link, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Detach a callout asset from a Google Ads campaign by removing the CampaignAsset link.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_ads_callouts_list and google_ads_callouts_create. The return value ({resource_name}) is also stated.

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 points to the sibling list operation ('For the sibling list operation use google_ads_callouts_list') and notes re-enabling requires the create tool. It implies when to use this tool (when detaching a callout) but does not give an explicit when-not-to-use beyond the list alternative.

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