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. It mentions the tool performs an upload and association, implying a write/mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds basic context but doesn't fully disclose behavioral traits needed for safe use.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a bullet-like Args section and a Returns statement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it 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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining parameters and stating the return value ('Returns the creative and association details'). However, as an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it could benefit from more behavioral context for this mutation tool.

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 description must compensate. It lists all 5 parameters in the Args section with brief explanations (e.g., 'Path to the image file', 'ID of the advertiser'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify formats (e.g., file types for 'file_path', URL validation for 'click_through_url') or constraints, leaving some gaps.

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: 'Upload a creative and associate it with a line item in one step.' It uses precise verbs ('upload', 'associate') and identifies the resource ('creative', 'line item'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'upload_creative' (which only uploads) and 'associate_creative_with_line_item' (which only associates).

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 'in one step,' indicating this tool should be used when both uploading and associating are needed together, rather than using separate tools like 'upload_creative' and 'associate_creative_with_line_item'. This provides clear guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives among the siblings.

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