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 beyond this by specifying that it creates multiple related entities (campaign, ad group, keywords, and responsive search ads) in a single operation, which helps the agent understand the scope and potential impact of the tool. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 - two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and scope without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and follows with specific details about what gets created. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complex creation tool with 7 parameters and destructiveHint annotation, the description provides good context about what gets created. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., campaign ID, confirmation). The description covers the creation scope well but could benefit from mentioning the tool's response format or success indicators.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions keywords and responsive search ads but doesn't provide format details or constraints beyond what the schema already specifies. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a Google Ads Search campaign with keywords') and specifies the exact resources being created ('Sets up campaign, ad group, keywords, and responsive search ads'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_display_campaign' or 'create_pmax_campaign' by specifying this is for Search campaigns.

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 context by specifying 'Google Ads Search campaign with keywords' and listing what gets created, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_display_campaign' or 'create_meta_campaign'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, timing considerations, or when NOT to use this tool.

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