google_ads_location_targeting_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it states the mutate operation is reversible, explains the order of operations (adds first then removes), describes the return format (array of resource_names), and clarifies ID handling (bare IDs auto-prefixed). This provides comprehensive transparency beyond the schema.

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 appropriately sized; every sentence adds unique information. It is well-structured: starts with the action, then return format, side effects, prerequisites, and parameter details. No redundancy or filler.

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 input schema has full coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the return format, operation order, reversibility, ID formats, and references to sibling tools for parameter values. An agent has all necessary information to invoke this tool 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%, yet the description adds significant value: it explains that bare IDs are auto-prefixed for add_locations, how to obtain remove_criterion_ids via another tool, and that customer_id is optional with fallback. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema definitions.

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. The verb 'Add and/or remove' combined with 'location criteria on a Google Ads campaign' precisely defines the action and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'google_ads_location_targeting_list'.

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: when to use (to update location targeting), prerequisites (at least one of add_locations/remove_criterion_ids must be provided), and reversibility (calling inverse operations). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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