target_cpa_recommendation_dismiss_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about what 'preview' returns, whether the dismissal is staged, or how appliedAmount/maximumAmount affect the preview, so it barely goes beyond structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, omitting information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. But with 4 required parameters and two optional amount objects whose role is unclear, the description leaves the agent without enough context to construct a correct call.

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 only 33%; profile and adAccountId are documented, but recommendationId, promotedObjectId, appliedAmount, and maximumAmount are not explained anywhere. The description says nothing about any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Preview dismissing') and resource ('one target-CPA recommendation'), which clearly separates it from target_cpa_recommendation_apply_preview and target_cpa_recommendations. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 on when to use this preview versus applying the dismissal directly, nor any prerequisites such as needing the recommendation to exist first. The intended workflow (preview before apply) must be inferred from the name alone.

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