google_ads_update_bid_strategyChange a Google Ads campaign's bidding strategy by selecting maximize clicks or maximize conversions. Provide the campaign ID to adjust bid settings directly.
Change a campaign's bidding strategy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strategy | Yes | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| customer_id | No | ||
| cpc_bid_ceiling | No | Only used with MAXIMIZE_CLICKS, account currency |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate that this is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description's 'change' is consistent with those hints. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as effect on existing campaigns, permission requirements, or API-side constraints. No contradiction exists.
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 front-loaded sentence with no fluff and is easy to parse. It is concise, though it largely restates the title rather than adding substantive detail.
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 mutating tool with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description is too thin to make the tool self-sufficient. It does not mention parameter relationships, the role of customer_id, or expected behavior after the update. Annotations cover safety but not call-construction details.
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%, and the description does not explain campaign_id, customer_id, strategy, or cpc_bid_ceiling semantics. The schema's enum and the cpc_bid_ceiling note carry the only real parameter meaning; the description does not compensate for the under-documented fields.
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 names a clear action ('change') and a specific target ('a campaign's bidding strategy'), so an agent can tell this is a bid-strategy mutation rather than a status or keyword operation. It is unambiguous against the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly call out a competing alternative.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related tools, no prerequisites, and no caveats about Google Ads campaign requirements. The only usage signal is the implied purpose in the verb and resource, which is weaker than an explicit 'use this when...' statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.