google_ads_sitelinks_create

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the two-step mutation process, exact return format on success and error, the campaign-level limit error type, reversibility only via google_ads_sitelinks_remove, and duplicate creation behavior. This is exceptionally transparent for a mutation tool.

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 compact—three sentences—yet packs all essential information: purpose, process, return format, error conditions, limitation, reversibility, and duplication behavior. No extraneous words; 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 complexity of a two-step mutate operation, no output schema, and the need to convey error handling and constraints, the description is complete. It explains the return value structure, the specific error format, the limit, and the duplication policy. No critical behavioral aspect is omitted.

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 descriptions for all six parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it notes that description2 requires description1 for display, specifies that final_url must be crawlable and on a verified domain, and implies the optionality of customer_id with fallback. This adds value, though the schema already provides core semantics.

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 specific verb 'Create' and resource 'sitelink Asset', and clarifies the two-step mutate process involving AssetService and CampaignAssetService. It differentiates from siblings by naming the removal tool and implying other asset creation tools like callouts. The name and context together clearly indicate its distinct purpose.

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 explains when to use the tool (creating sitelink assets linked to campaigns), notes the hardcoded limit of 20 campaign-level sitelinks and the resulting error, and highlights that identical text produces duplicates unless deduplicated upstream. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like google_ads_callouts_create, but the sibling list and name provide sufficient differentiation. Guidance is clear but could be more explicit about when not to use.

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