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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by describing the multi-step workflow behavior and what gets created/modified. However, it lacks important behavioral details like whether this requires special permissions, whether operations are atomic/rollback on failure, rate limits, or what happens when entities already exist (beyond 'finds or creates').

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 with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by parameter explanations, then workflow steps, and finally return information. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the creative_sizes example could be simplified). Overall, most content earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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 complex 12-parameter workflow tool with no annotations, the description provides substantial context about the multi-step process, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, given the tool's complexity and mutation nature, it could benefit from more behavioral warnings or prerequisites.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage and 12 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose with specific examples (e.g., creative_sizes JSON format, end_month range 1-12, target_ad_unit_id source). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds crucial context beyond basic type definitions.

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 specific action ('Create a complete campaign') and enumerates the exact sequence of operations performed (find/create advertiser, order, line item, upload creatives). It explicitly distinguishes this comprehensive workflow from sibling tools that handle individual components like create_advertiser, create_order, or upload_creative.

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 when to use this tool by stating it's a 'complete workflow' that handles multiple steps. It implicitly suggests using this instead of individual sibling tools when creating an entire campaign from scratch. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives for partial updates.

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