Google 広告のキャンペーンを作成

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: default PAUSED status, network-targeting defaults off for Search, and the P-MAX constraint that no manual bidding, ad groups, or ads exist. It does not discuss auth, quotas, or failure modes.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the critical default (既定は PAUSED), then layers dependencies and P-MAX caveats. Bold emphasis aids scanning. It is dense but every clause carries operational information; no filler.

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 mutation tool with an output-less schema, the description supplies the essential preconditions (budget resource name source, P-MAX asset-group requirement, default paused state) an agent needs to call it correctly. Remaining gaps are minor and would be covered by per-parameter schema text.

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 91%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including the PAUSED default and enum meanings the description repeats. The description adds only the provenance of budget_resource_name and the P-MAX bidding caveat, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (キャンペーンを作る) and immediately scopes it to the two supported channel types (検索 / P-MAX), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_ad_group or create_asset_group. An agent can identify what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

Names concrete dependencies and routes to siblings: budget_resource_name comes from google_ads_create_budget, and P-MAX requires google_ads_create_asset_group ('無いと配信できない'). It also clarifies that creation and serving-enablement are separate operations. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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