changes_check

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, side effects, or rate limits. It only describes the input constraint without explaining the operation's nature (e.g., 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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and constraint, followed by usage guidance and a pointer to tool_help. No redundant information.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential constraint and sibling differentiation but relies on tool_help for parameter details and omits return format and permissions.

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 0%, and the description adds meaning to only three parameters (campaign_ids, ad_group_ids, ad_ids) by stating they are mutually exclusive. Other parameters (field_names, fields) are not explained, and the description defers to tool_help for details.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks changes since a timestamp within specific objects (campaigns, ad groups, ads) and distinguishes itself from sibling 'changes_check_campaigns' for account-wide scans.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use for targeted checks with exactly one of three ID filters, and suggests alternative 'changes_check_campaigns' for account-wide scans. Does not mention when not to use, but the comparison is helpful.

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