create_structured_snippets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly describes a mid-apply failure mode, including that the error carries extension_ids and that retrying re-runs all steps, which is actionable and goes beyond schema. However, it does not mention typical success behavior or whether the operation is destructive, so it's not fully transparent.

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 main action and constraints are front-loaded in the first sentence. The verification date is one line, and the failure-handling paragraph is relevant but somewhat lengthy. Overall, it is compact enough and each section serves a purpose, though the verification line could be considered noise.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the parameter constraints and a specific failure scenario, which is good. But it omits success behavior, any prerequisites (e.g., campaign existence), and clarification of 'MS-supported'. The failure note hints at a larger workflow but does not fully describe what the tool returns on success, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantics for header (must be MS-supported, e.g., 'Services') and values (3+ required), which is helpful. But it provides no explanation for campaign_id, and it doesn't define what 'MS-supported' means or the expected format of values. Partial compensation only.

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 opens with 'Draft a structured snippet', which clearly identifies the verb and resource type. It also states concrete constraints (header must be MS-supported, 3+ values), reinforcing the tool's scope. While it doesn't explicitly name siblings like draft_sitelinks or create_callouts, the resource type distinguishes it enough that an agent can infer its purpose.

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 alternative extension-creation tools (e.g., draft_sitelinks, create_callouts). There are no prerequisites mentioned, no context about campaign suitability, and no exclusions. The only usage hints are parameter constraints, which are not usage-scenario guidance.

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