Google Ad Manager MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the effect (hidden from UI, retrievable via API), notes irreversibility ('cannot be undone via API'), and implies a mutation (archive action). It lacks details on permissions or rate limits, but covers essential operational context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, followed by behavioral details and parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the next two explain effects and usage, and the Args/Returns sections provide necessary technical details without redundancy.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics adequately. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. It could improve by mentioning prerequisites or error cases, but it's sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'line_item_id' in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the schema's type definition. It clarifies this is 'The line item ID to archive', which is helpful context, though it doesn't specify format or constraints like valid ranges.

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 verb 'archive' and resource 'line item', distinguishing it from siblings like 'pause_line_item', 'resume_line_item', or 'update_line_item_name'. It specifies that archived items are hidden from UI but retrievable via API, which adds specificity beyond just the action name.

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 clear context for usage ('useful for cleaning up old campaigns') and mentions a key limitation ('cannot be undone via API'), which helps differentiate from reversible actions. However, it does not explicitly name when to use alternatives like 'pause_line_item' or 'delete' operations, though the irreversible nature implies it's for permanent cleanup.

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