create_ad_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the tool creates an ad group and returns an ID for chaining, but it does not mention side effects, idempotency behavior, permissions, errors, or response structure beyond the ID. This is partially transparent but not fully.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action, return value, chaining behavior, and prerequisites are front-loaded and easy to parse. 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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations. The description mentions only a couple of required parameters and the return value, leaving required name, optional configuration semantics, and nested bidding/product-set behavior unexplained. The agent is not equipped to use the tool safely or correctly in many real cases.

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 only 50%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It names campaign_id and bidding_config but omits name, which is also required by the schema. It adds no semantics for optional parameters like product_set, idempotency_key, or landing_page_configuration, and could mislead an agent into thinking only two fields are required.

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 action ('Create an ad group'), the resource ('for a campaign'), and the key output ('Returns ad_group_id for chaining to create_ad'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_campaign and create_ad without requiring schema inspection.

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 gives clear context: create an ad group under a campaign, then chain to create_ad. It also names the key prerequisites, campaign_id and bidding_config. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives like update_ad_group, but the usage context is clear enough.

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