add_location_targets

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

The description indicates a mutation operation (target or exclude), consistent with the readOnlyHint=false annotation. However, it lacks details on how existing targets are affected (e.g., overwrite or append) and any potential side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides a useful prerequisite in the second sentence.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It could provide more context on how bid_adjustment interacts with targeting vs. exclusion, but overall it is reasonably complete for a well-documented tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only hinting that location_ids should come from resolve_postal_codes.

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 targets or excludes Microsoft LocationIds on a campaign, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like remove_location_targets, which is a minor gap.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite (resolve ZIPs to LocationIds first with resolve_postal_codes), helping the agent understand the required sequence. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is adequate.

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