Prepare a typed update to one WEBPAGE conversion action. Type is immutable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| customer_id | Yes | 10-digit Google Ads customer id. | |
| counting_type | No | ||
| default_value | No | ||
| primary_for_goal | No | ||
| connection_context | No | ||
| conversion_action_id | Yes | ||
| default_currency_code | No | ||
| always_use_default_value | No | ||
| view_through_lookback_window_days | No | ||
| click_through_lookback_window_days | 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), lowering the bar. The description usefully adds that this is a preparation step and that type is immutable, but does not disclose what preparation yields (a staged mutation, a token for confirm, validation-only) or whether any resource is actually changed.
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 with no filler: the action is stated first, the key constraint second. Nothing is redundant. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but not bloated.
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 14-parameter mutation-preparation tool with no output schema, low schema coverage, and a required prepare→confirm handshake, the description omits far too much: which fields are updatable, what preparation returns, and how the confirm step consumes it. An agent cannot call this correctly without opening the schema and guessing at the workflow.
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 7% — customer_id is the sole documented parameter — so the description carries the burden and largely fails. It conveys only that type is a fixed WEBPAGE and immutable, leaving name, status, category, counting_type, values, lookback windows, and connection_context unexplained beyond bare enums.
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 and resource: 'Prepare a typed update to one WEBPAGE conversion action.' The prepare/confirm pairing with sibling google_ads_conversion_action_update_confirm and the create/remove siblings makes the resource scope clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the confirm step, 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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The two-phase prepare/confirm workflow that the sibling set implies is never mentioned, nor is any prerequisite (e.g., that a confirm call follows). The agent must infer the workflow from sibling naming alone.
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.