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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an association operation but doesn't clarify whether this creates a new association, modifies an existing one, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens with conflicts. The mention of 'Returns the association details' is minimal behavioral information.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and a return statement. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. The presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to explain return values, but it lacks important context about behavioral implications, error conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. The parameter coverage is basic but complete.

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?

The description explicitly lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations, which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't explain the significance of creative/line item IDs, what size overrides actually do, or provide format/constraint details. The parameter explanations are basic but cover all parameters.

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 ('Associate') and the resources involved ('a creative with a line item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'upload_and_associate_creative', which appears to be a related but distinct operation.

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 like 'upload_and_associate_creative' or 'list_creatives_by_line_item'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual constraints for when this association should be performed.

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