Google Ad Manager MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool duplicates a line item and returns details of both items, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether this is a read-only or mutation operation, potential side effects (e.g., impact on associated campaigns or orders), or error handling. For a tool that likely modifies data, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and return information. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter hints into the main sentence, but overall it's efficient 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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what parameters mean, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error cases) and usage guidelines relative to siblings, which are important for a tool in a crowded namespace.

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 adds meaningful context for all three parameters beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'source_line_item_id' identifies the item to duplicate, 'new_name' is for the new item, and 'rename_source' is optional for renaming the original. This clarifies the purpose and relationships of each parameter, compensating well for the schema's lack of 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 tool's purpose: 'Duplicate an existing line item.' It specifies the verb ('duplicate') and resource ('line item'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_line_item' or 'update_line_item_name', which would require more specific context about when duplication is preferred over creation or modification.

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. It doesn't mention scenarios where duplication is appropriate (e.g., copying configurations) or when other tools like 'create_line_item' might be better. With many sibling tools available, this lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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