Prepare to replace Display, Demand Gen or App ad headlines and descriptions across the explicitly listed ad groups. Saves a private draft after Google validate-only and a complete affected-resource snapshot; does not send the change. Show the draft for explicit approval before calling google_ads_ad_text_update_confirm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| customer_id | Yes | 10-digit Google Ads customer id. | |
| connection_context | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / connection_contextAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: it saves a private draft, runs Google validate-only, takes a complete affected-resource snapshot, and crucially does not send the change. That is exactly what an agent needs to know about a mutation-prepare tool. Auth requirements and rate limits are not covered, hence not a 5.
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 with the core scope front-loaded ahead of the workflow and safety note. No filler; slightly dense but 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 nested-body mutation-prepare tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the safety stance (no send), and the handoff to confirm. It could add a note on what the draft/snapshot returns, but nothing essential 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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must carry param meaning. It maps well to headlines, descriptions, and affected_ad_group_ids ('explicitly listed ad groups'), but leaves ad_id and the ad_format enum (DISPLAY/DEMAND_GEN/APP) implicit. It partially, not fully, compensates 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?
Specific verb (replace) plus resource (Display/Demand Gen/App ad headlines and descriptions) and scope (explicitly listed ad groups). It also names the sibling google_ads_ad_text_update_confirm, so an agent can distinguish this prepare step from the confirm step without opening either schema.
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 states the next step and the condition that gates it: show the draft for approval before calling google_ads_ad_text_update_confirm. It does not state when NOT to use this tool or other alternatives, but the prepare/confirm routing is clear.
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.