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 | ||
| 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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that type is immutable, but does not state that 'prepare' stages changes rather than applying them, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, validation behavior, or what the agent should expect. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no fluff and front-loaded purpose. The term 'typed' is slightly jargon-heavy but the overall structure is tight and efficient for the limited content it provides.
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?
Given 13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and only 8% schema coverage, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'prepare' means operationally, what the parameters configure, or what steps follow. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the provided context.
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 8% (1 of 13 parameters described). The description adds meaning only to the 'type' parameter by stating it is immutable and WEBPAGE, but leaves the other 12 parameters completely unexplained. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('prepare'), the resource ('conversion action'), and the specific scope ('one WEBPAGE'). It distinguishes from create/remove via 'update' but does not explicitly mention the prepare/confirm workflow with the sibling confirm tool, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of the required confirm step after preparation, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Agents are left to infer the two-phase prepare/confirm pattern from the tool name and sibling list.
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.