update_ad_group

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a non-destructive mutation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as whether updates are partial or full replacements, or any 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key point. However, it is too brief and sacrifices necessary detail, making it less useful than it could be if it provided more structure.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far from complete. It lacks information about return values (though output schema exists), usage context compared to siblings, and specifics on parameter behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions context_hints, leaving the other six parameters (name, description, status, billing_event_type, max_bid_micros) completely unexplained. This severely limits the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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 identifies the tool as updating an ad group and specifically mentions the key feature of adding/replacing context_hints. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_ad_group or update_ad_copy by focusing on the ad group entity and the context_hints aspect.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_status, pause_ads, or archive_ads. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or typical use cases.

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