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 explains the operational effect ('stops the line item from delivering ads') and mentions the action is reversible ('can be resumed later'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't address potential side effects, permissions required, or error conditions that might occur when pausing.

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 first, followed by behavioral explanation, usage context with alternative tool, and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is appropriately front-loaded.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description provides good coverage: clear purpose, behavioral effect, reversibility context, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. The main gap is lack of information about permissions or potential side effects.

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 provides the parameter name ('line_item_id') and clarifies its purpose ('The line item ID to pause'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type information. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this adequately compensates for the schema's lack of semantic documentation.

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 ('pause a delivering line item') and the resource affected ('line item'), distinguishing it from siblings like resume_line_item (which reverses the action) and archive_line_item (which is a different state change). The phrase 'stops the line item from delivering ads' provides concrete operational context.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('pause a delivering line item') and when not to use it (implied: only for line items currently delivering). It names the alternative tool ('resume_line_item') for reversing the action, providing clear sibling differentiation and usage context.

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