Enable or configure conversion API delivery for an ad account

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by disclosing the confirm: true gate and that the operation has no server-side dry run, which is exactly the kind of safety context an agent needs before a mutation. It does not say what happens to an existing config when enabled is toggled, nor what the preview response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the action and endpoint front-loaded and the write-safety caveat immediately after. Every clause 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 mutation tool with a nested free-form config object, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description leaves the most consequential parameter (config) undefined. The confirm/no-dry-run disclosure is valuable, but an agent still cannot tell what config shape to supply.

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 50%, and the description only echoes the confirm requirement already documented in the schema while the path template hints at adAccountId's role. The body fields (enabled, config, eventTypes) — including a free-form config object — get no explanation in the description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (enable or configure conversion API delivery) and anchors it to the concrete endpoint PUT /v1/conversions/integrations/{adAccountId}. This separates it from conversions_listIntegrations by HTTP method, though the description never names the sibling it is not.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement and the confirm gate clarifies the execution condition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over revenue_createIntegration, conversions_send, or conversions_listIntegrations, and no stated prerequisites.

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