google_ads_campaigns_update

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral information: the operation is mutating, reversible via rollback_apply, and switching bidding strategies can reset learning periods (with a confirmation advisory). Missing details on permissions or error conditions, but the provided context is valuable.

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 cover purpose, behavior, and usage guidance without any fluff. Key information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose and when to use it.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: partial update, reversibility, learning period warning, and alternative tool. Lacks details on return structure or error scenarios, but is reasonably complete for the complexity level.

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%, and the description adds extra meaning: bidding_strategy includes a warning about learning period reset; customer_id mentions fallback to environment variables. These add value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 updates an existing campaign with a partial update behavior (only provided fields changed). It distinguishes itself from the sibling google_ads_campaigns_update_status by specifying that for status-only changes, the lighter-weight alternative should be preferred.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: for status-only changes (ENABLED/PAUSED/REMOVED), prefer google_ads_campaigns_update_status as it is lighter-weight and maps to pause/resume workflows. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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