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 full burden and does well: it discloses that this creates a new creative (mutation), explains how creative size is extracted from filename, describes the override_size use case for different placements, and mentions the return value. It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides solid operational context.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, parameter list with explanations, and return value. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, but with output schema present, the description provides excellent parameter semantics and behavioral context. It covers the creation process, filename parsing, and override use cases. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on input behavior and operational context.

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 fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters in detail: required vs. optional status, purpose of each parameter, and specific usage examples for override_size parameters. It adds crucial semantic context beyond the bare schema, including filename parsing behavior and parameter interdependencies.

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 an image creative') and resource ('to Ad Manager'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'bulk_upload_creatives' (single vs. bulk) and 'create_third_party_creative' (image vs. third-party). It specifies the exact type of creative being uploaded.

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 implies usage through parameter explanations (e.g., when to use override_size parameters), but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'bulk_upload_creatives' or 'upload_and_associate_creative'. It provides contextual guidance for parameter usage but not tool selection.

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