synter-mcp-server

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

The annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a write operation. The description adds valuable context about supporting 'image uploads from URLs' which isn't covered by annotations, giving practical implementation details. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on failure.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each add distinct value: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a key implementation detail. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about what gets created and how images are handled. However, it doesn't mention what the tool returns (e.g., campaign ID, success status) or error conditions, which would be helpful given the complexity.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Create'), resource ('Google Ads Display campaign'), and ad type ('responsive display ads'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_search_campaign or create_meta_campaign. It also mentions the specific feature of 'image uploads from URLs' which adds further differentiation.

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 for creating display campaigns with responsive ads, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like create_search_campaign or create_pmax_campaign. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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