x_ads_update_audienceChange the name or description of a custom audience. Provide the account ID, audience ID, and only the fields you want to update.
Rename or change description of a custom audience. Only fields the user named.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| account_id | Yes | Ads API account id from x_ads_list_accounts, e.g. 18ce55v2od2 | |
| description | No | ||
| custom_audience_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), so the mutation behavior is known. The description adds the useful partial-update trait: only fields the user names are changed. It does not disclose response behavior, error cases, or side effects, but it is consistent with the annotations.
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 carry all essential information with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the partial-update constraint is stated immediately after.
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?
The tool is simple and the description plus schema cover the core invocation: required account_id is documented, and the updateable fields are named. However, custom_audience_id remains unexplained, and there is no mention of where to source it (e.g., from x_ads_list_audiences), so an agent may still need to infer part of the required context.
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 only 25%, with custom_audience_id and the update fields undocumented. The description compensates for name and description by explaining they are the updatable fields, but it does not clarify custom_audience_id semantics. It adds value beyond the schema but does not fully cover the gap.
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?
Description uses a specific verb and resource ('Rename or change description of a custom audience') and names the exact fields affected. This clearly separates it from sibling create/delete/list audience tools, and 'Only fields the user named' adds a precise partial-update scope.
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 usage is implied: use this when an existing custom audience needs its name or description changed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like x_ads_create_audience or x_ads_list_audiences, leaving some selection guidance to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.