ad_manager_google_create_integration

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Create' adds no new behavioral information. It does not disclose side effects, required authentication, or what happens to existing settings. The description adds minimal value beyond the structured annotations.

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 extremely short ('Create Google integration') with no fluff, which is concise and front-loaded. It earns its place by stating the core action, though it omits important context. For its brevity, it is appropriately sized, but the lack of detail prevents a higher score.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what happens upon creation, what the integration is used for, or any prerequisites. Given the simplicity of parameters, a bit more context about the integration's purpose or return value would make it complete, but it is missing.

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 input schema documents all three parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., mccId as 'MCC identifier', locationId with default behavior). The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and a resource ('Google integration'), which clearly indicates the action. It distinguishes from Facebook and LinkedIn integration tools by naming the platform explicitly. However, it does not elaborate on what an integration entails or what it does, so it is adequate but not richly informative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ad_manager_fb_create_integration or ad_manager_li_create_integration. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., OAuth, existing MCC) or context that would help an agent decide to call this over sibling tools.

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