add_rsa

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

The description discloses critical behavior beyond the annotations: the ad is created ENABLED, starts serving immediately, has no paused-on-create option, and targets a presumably live ad group. This is highly valuable risk information. It does not contradict the annotations, which correctly mark the operation as non-read-only.

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 three focused sentences: what it does, the prerequisite, and the critical behavioral warning. Each sentence carries necessary information with no filler. The most important distinction from sibling tools is front-loaded.

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 side-effect profile, the description covers all essential context: prerequisite, live-serving behavior, user confirmation requirement, and the target ad group. The output schema and nested spec descriptions cover the remaining details.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage at the top level, but the description compensates by clarifying that spec and confirm_token must come from a successful preview_rsa. This gives the confirm_token purpose and constrains the spec parameter. The nested schema already documents fields like final_url and ad_group_id.

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 and resource: 'Create the previewed responsive search ad for real, in the existing ad group.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling preview_rsa by emphasizing the actual creation step versus previewing.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: only after a successful preview_rsa, with the exact spec and confirm_token. It also instructs to confirm with the user before calling. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the prerequisite effectively disambiguates it from preview_rsa.

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