synter-mcp-server

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutation operation. The description adds context by specifying it adds keywords to campaigns/ad groups, which aligns with the destructive nature. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if keywords already exist.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, error handling, or return values. Given the annotations provide safety info, it's complete enough to avoid being misleading but could be more informative.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions and an enum for match_type. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining keyword formats or match type implications), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 action ('Add keywords') and target resources ('Google Ads campaign or ad group'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'add_negative_keywords' (which presumably adds negative keywords), leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'add_negative_keywords' or campaign creation tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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