ad_manager_google_delete_conversion

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether deletion is permanent, what side effects might occur, or whether any permissions are required. For a destructive tool, more transparency would be expected even with annotations present.

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 concise with no wasted words, which is structurally efficient. It is not overlong, but it is also not informative. While it is not harmful, it could be considered under-specification rather than true conciseness, though the brevity itself is acceptable.

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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description fails to mention what the tool returns, whether the operation is reversible, or any warnings about consequences. The schema covers parameters, and annotations cover safety, but the overall context is incomplete. The description does not explain the effect of deleting a conversion or any dependencies (e.g., integration requirements).

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 has 100% description coverage: both conversionId and locationId are documented with clear descriptions, including the default behavior for locationId. The description itself does not mention parameters at all, but since the schema already explains them, the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra parameter meaning.

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 'Delete conversion' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (conversion), so an agent can infer the tool's purpose. However, it is extremely terse and does not differentiate from sibling delete tools like ad_manager_google_delete_segment or ad_manager_google_delete_ad_account, relying entirely on the tool name for context. It is not a tautology, but it adds no scope or specificity beyond the name.

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 such as ad_manager_google_upsert_conversion or ad_manager_google_get_conversions. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or situations where deletion is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the tool name and schema.

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