Draft a conversion action

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

The description transparently explains that the action returns a preview and does not apply until confirmed, aligning with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also details the fallback behavior for default_value and the immutability flag, disclosing the tool's operational nuances without contradicting 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, using line breaks to separate distinct concepts. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the repeated 'legal fallback' phrase adds slight redundancy. Overall, it is efficient and readable.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, return behavior (preview with plan_id), and next steps (confirm_and_apply), which is sufficient for a draft operation. It does not explain every parameter, but that gap is partially addressed in parameter semantics. Given the availability of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately contextualizes the workflow.

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?

The description provides meaningful explanations for several key parameters (type_, category, default_value, always_use_default_value, include_in_conversions_metric) but leaves others (counting_type, currency_code, primary_for_goal, attribution_model, windows, phone duration) undefined. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but not fully, warranting a moderate score.

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 'Draft a new Google Ads ConversionAction — returns a PREVIEW,' identifying the specific action and its preview nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like draft_update_conversion_action and draft_remove_conversion_action, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call confirm_and_apply with the returned plan_id to execute,' providing a clear next step. It also notes that include_in_conversions_metric is immutable on create and suggests using draft_update_conversion_action for changes, guiding appropriate usage among siblings.

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