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 clearly indicates this is a creation/mutation operation ('Create', 'Returns the created creative details'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, rate limits, or error conditions. The SafeFrame compatibility note is useful context but doesn't fully compensate for the missing 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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with a clear purpose statement, provides usage context, then systematically documents parameters with helpful explanations, and ends with return information. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information. The information is well-organized and easy to parse.

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 the complexity of a 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations, the description does an excellent job covering the essentials. The parameter explanations are thorough, and the presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context about permissions, side effects, or error handling to be fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter semantics through the 'Args:' section that clearly explains each of the 7 parameters. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema - explaining what 'advertiser_id' represents, clarifying that width/height are in pixels, describing what 'snippet' contains, explaining the purpose of 'expanded_snippet', and providing the default for 'is_safe_frame_compatible'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 third-party creative') and resource type ('HTML/JavaScript ad tag'), with explicit examples of what it's used for (DCM/Campaign Manager tags, custom HTML ads, third-party ad server tags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'upload_creative' or 'bulk_upload_creatives' by specifying it's for third-party creatives with HTML/JavaScript code snippets.

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 about when to use this tool ('Use this for DCM/Campaign Manager tags, custom HTML ads, or any third-party ad server tags'), which helps differentiate it from other creative-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different creative types.

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