Google 広告のキャンペーン・広告を削除

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description nonetheless reinforces irreversibility in bold ('元に戻せない') and steers toward the reversible pause path, which is valuable emphasis for a destructive tool, though it omits things like cascade effects on children or permission requirements.

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 tight sentences plus a parenthetical; the destructive warning and the safer alternative are front-loaded. Nothing is padding.

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 no-output-schema destructive tool with fully covered parameters, the description supplies the essential facts: what is deleted, that it cannot be undone, and the alternative. It stops short of stating downstream effects or required permissions, a minor remaining gap.

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 100%, so all three parameters (kind enum with default, object_id, customer_id) are already documented. The description restates the composite '広告グループID~広告ID' key for kind=ad, which is useful but duplicated from the schema's own wording, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 (削除する) and enumerates the exact resources (キャンペーン / 広告グループ / 広告), distinguishing it from the many create/update siblings. An agent can immediately tell this is the destructive removal tool.

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 names the alternative (google_ads_update_status with PAUSED) and the condition that selects it ('止めたいだけなら'), i.e. when NOT to delete. This is precisely the routing guidance an agent needs before performing an irreversible action.

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