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 this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), or rate limits. The mention of returning 'updated line item details' hints at output but lacks specifics on format or side effects.

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 appropriately sized: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and return information. It uses minimal sentences without redundancy. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly, and some wording is slightly verbose (e.g., 'Returns the updated line item details' could be tighter).

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description partially compensates by explaining parameters and hinting at returns. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, errors) and doesn't leverage sibling context. The output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but overall completeness is moderate due to missing usage and transparency elements.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: 'line_item_id: The line item ID' and 'new_name: New name for the line item', clarifying what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., ID constraints, name length limits) or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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: 'Update a line item's name.' It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('line item's name'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_creative' or 'duplicate_line_item', which could also involve modifications to line items or related entities.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing line item ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_line_item' (for viewing) or 'archive_line_item' (for deletion). Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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