google_ads_schedule_targeting_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that returns an array of resource names for each operation (adds first, then removes), that new schedule criteria default to start_minute/end_minute=ZERO, and that the operation is reversible. It does not mention permission requirements or rate limits, which would enhance transparency.

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 five sentences with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds essential information (return format, default behavior, reversibility, requirement, sibling reference). Every sentence earns its place.

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 has no output schema, the description explains the return format. It covers key aspects: what it does, required constraints, default behavior, and reversibility. It does not mention error conditions or idempotency, but for a mutation tool of this complexity, it is mostly 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds context beyond the schema: it notes the default minute zero for new schedules (while schema covers hour defaults), and explains that remove_criterion_ids can be obtained from the list tool. This adds meaningful value without repeating 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's action: 'Add and/or remove ad-schedule criteria on a Google Ads campaign in a single mutate.' It specifies the verb (add/remove), the resource (ad-schedule criteria), and context (campaign). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool google_ads_schedule_targeting_list, which is read-only.

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 notes that at least one of add_schedules or remove_criterion_ids must be provided, and that the tool is reversible by calling it again with inverse operations. It explicitly references the sibling for read-only listing. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance for other alternative schedule tools (though none exist directly in siblings).

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