google_ads_conversions_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares the mutation, states the created row is persisted with status ENABLED by default, and gives an explicit reversal path (update with status='REMOVED' or remove). It omits permission/auth requirements and any safeguards against duplicate conversion actions, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, then return shape, then mutation behavior, then routing — a good order. A couple of sentences restate schema facts (256-char name limit, category default) that could be dropped without loss.

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 12-parameter mutating tool with a nested approval object and no output schema, the description covers the return value, default status, reversibility, and sibling routing. Missing are account/permission assumptions and duplicate-handling advice, but nothing critical to correct invocation is absent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including enum defaults and ranges. The description adds only a few items that the schema already states (name length, category default), so baseline 3 applies. It does not explain the non-obvious approval/decision_id/expected journaling parameters beyond what the schema says.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a new Google Ads conversion action') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the update sibling at the end. An agent can tell create apart from update/remove/tag without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to google_ads_conversions_update for existing actions, which is the key exclusion. It does not cover when to create a new conversion action versus reusing an existing one (e.g. checking google_ads_conversions_list first), so it falls short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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