approveAdChange

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

Discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: it records approval with its origin, enforces the previewed/expiry constraint, and clarifies the distinction between approval and actual platform mutation. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 organized with a clear purpose statement followed by constraints and clarifications. It is slightly verbose with repeated emphasis, but all sentences contribute useful information and the structure is easy to parse.

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 single-parameter input and absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: valid states, error condition, and the relationship to applyAdChange. It does not describe success response details, but that is not required by the schema setup.

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 only parameter, 'id', has a basic description ('Id of the change request') and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional detail about the id format, scope, or validation, so the semantics are adequate but not enriched.

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 approves a previewed change, with the verb 'approve' and object 'ad change'. It is well distinguished from sibling tools such as applyAdChange, rejectAdChange, and previewAdChange.

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?

Explicitly defines when approval is valid (state 'previewed' and not expired), states a key restriction (API keys cannot self-approve, resulting in 403), and clarifies that approval does not apply the change to the platform—that is applyAdChange's role.

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