exclude_geo_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Draft' and adds 'Live-verified 2026-07-30.' It does not clarify whether the draft is immediately applied, requires confirmation, is reversible, or what side effects occur. For a mutation-like action, this is a significant gap.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The primary action is stated first, and the parameter hint is on the second line. Zero filler, and the 'Live-verified' timestamp is a lightweight but useful piece of metadata. Excellent structure for scanning.

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?

The tool is simple (two params, no output schema), but the 'draft' concept is ambiguous and could affect the agent's workflow (e.g., whether it must be followed by confirm_and_apply). The description does not close this gap, but it provides the key parameter source and purpose, so it is minimally viable.

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?

Given the 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate. It does provide a meaningful hint that location_id comes from search_geo_targets, which helps the agent understand the parameter's provenance. However, it does not explain the format or any constraints beyond the schema's integer type, and campaign_id is only implicitly obvious.

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 states a specific action ('Draft a location EXCLUSION on a campaign') with a clear resource and scope, and even hints at the required data source ('location_id from search_geo_targets'). It is distinct from sibling tools like remove_geo_target (removal vs. drafting), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The only usage guidance is the hint that location_id should come from search_geo_targets. There is no explicit statement on when to prefer this over removing an exclusion or when a draft must be confirmed/approved. The 'draft' semantics imply a two-step flow, but this is not spelled out.

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