ads_update_conversion_actionChange a conversion action's status (ENABLED / HIDDEN / REMOVED — REMOVED is permanent), whether it is primary, its name, or its default value. Previews unless confirm is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| customer_id | Yes | ||
| primary_for_goal | No | ||
| default_value_major | No | ||
| conversion_action_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningfully beyond them: REMOVED is permanent, and the tool previews unless confirm is true, so an agent knows a call is a dry-run by default. It stops short of describing what a preview returns or the effects on unset 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?
Two compact sentences with no filler; the set of changeable fields is front-loaded and the preview/confirm caveat is stated last. Every clause earns its place.
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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the reversible/irreversible distinction and the preview mechanic. It would be more complete with a note on partial-update semantics or auth requirements, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains five of the seven parameters, including the enforcement of the status enum ('REMOVED is permanent') and the confirm preview toggle, which the schema does not document. Only customer_id and conversion_action_id are left unexplained, and those are self-evident identifiers.
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 (Change) and resource (a conversion action), and enumerates the editable fields (status, primary, name, default value). This clearly separates it from ads_create_conversion_action and ads_list_conversion_actions, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 'Previews unless confirm is true' clause gives a real usage rule for applying mutations, which is helpful. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the create/list conversion-action siblings, so selection is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.