google_ads_recommendations_apply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the tool is mutating, commits changes immediately, and is not reversible. It also mentions server-side validation. However, it does not cover error scenarios, required permissions, or what happens if the recommendation is already applied.

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 at five sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, return, mutability, validation, and link to sibling tool. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently structured without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with irreversible consequences) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: action, irreversibility, validation, and relationship to list tool. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites, but is adequate for a tool with only two parameters.

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%, with both parameters described. The description adds value by noting the resource_name format is re-validated server-side and that customer_id is optional with fallback. This supplements the schema but does not drastically enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Apply' and the resource 'recommendation by resource name'. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool google_ads_recommendations_list by stating its use for listing candidates. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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 advises to 'list candidates using google_ads_recommendations_list', providing clear context for use. It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it. The mention of irreversibility and additional side effects (budget, device, schedule) helps guide usage decisions.

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