google_ads_location_targeting_update

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it is mutating, returns one entry per operation (adds first then removes), and is reversible only with inverse calls. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but for a mutation tool this is adequate.

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 a single moderate-length paragraph that front-loads the main action. It is not verbose but packs essential information. A more structured format could improve readability, but it earns its sentences without waste.

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, the description explains the return value format. It covers all parameters, usage constraints (at least one array required), and behavioral transparency (order of operations, reversibility). It also references sibling tools for obtaining necessary IDs, making it contextually complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the auto-prefixing of bare IDs for add_locations, clarifying that remove_criterion_ids come from the list tool, and noting that customer_id is optional with fallback. This extra context enhances understanding 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 tool adds and/or removes location criteria on a Google Ads campaign, using specific verbs ('Add and/or remove') and resource ('location criteria on a Google Ads campaign'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like google_ads_location_targeting_list, which only lists criteria.

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 provides clear usage context: it's for mutating location criteria in a single call, requires at least one of add_locations or remove_criterion_ids, and explains that it's reversible only by calling the tool again with inverse operations. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives, but since it's the only location targeting update tool among siblings, this is sufficient.

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