google_ads_conversions_update

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the mutating nature, partial update behavior (only passed fields modified), the ValueError when no updatable field is supplied, and the return value. However, it stops short of mentioning potential side effects like permanent changes or required permissions, which would make it fully transparent.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action, then explains partial update behavior and the required-field error condition, and finishes with the deletion alternative. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 9 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it behaves (partial update), when it fails (missing updatable field), what it returns, and how to achieve deletion. No critical context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that at least one updatable field must be supplied, a constraint not evident from the schema's required array, and explains 'REMOVED' status semantics in relation to deletion. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing Google Ads conversion action', making the tool's purpose obvious. It also distinguishes from siblings like google_ads_conversions_create and google_ads_conversions_remove by specifying partial update semantics and linking to the remove tool for deletion.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (update existing conversion actions) and provides an alternative for deletion: 'To delete/archive an action use status 'REMOVED' here or call google_ads_conversions_remove.' This clear guidance on when not to use it (full removal) and naming the alternative tool earns a top score.

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