synter-mcp-server

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a write/mutation operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the platform (Google Ads), mentions the return values (conversion ID and label for GTM setup), and implies persistence (creation of a conversion action). No contradiction with annotations, and the description usefully supplements the safety profile with platform and output details.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, and the second adds critical output information. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 a destructive tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the action and return values, but lacks context like error conditions, permissions needed, or typical workflows. With annotations covering destructiveness and schema covering parameters, it meets basic needs but could be more complete for a 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 100%, with clear documentation for all parameters (name, value, category). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema fully handles parameter semantics, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 ('Create a conversion action in Google Ads') and resource ('conversion action'), with specific mention of Google Ads platform. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_conversions' (read vs. create) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like campaign creation tools. The purpose is specific but could better highlight uniqueness within the sibling set.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active Google Ads account), when to choose this over other conversion-related tools (none in siblings), or typical use cases. The return value mention hints at GTM setup, but this is outcome-focused rather than usage guidance.

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