synter-mcp-server

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

The annotation 'destructiveHint: true' already indicates this is a write/mutation operation. The description adds some context by specifying required assets, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like what happens if creation fails, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response contains. The description doesn't contradict the annotation.

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 gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could potentially benefit from being slightly more structured to separate requirements from purpose.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat lacking. While annotations cover the destructive nature and the schema covers parameters, the description doesn't address what happens after creation, error conditions, or provide context about Performance Max campaigns versus other campaign types available in sibling tools.

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 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that images, headlines, descriptions, and business name are required, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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') and resource ('Google Ads Performance Max campaign'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create_search_campaign' or 'create_display_campaign' beyond mentioning 'Performance Max' in 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 minimal usage guidance - only stating that certain assets are 'required' (images, headlines, descriptions, business name). It offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_search_campaign' or 'create_display_campaign', nor does it mention prerequisites or when this tool would be inappropriate.

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