create_conversion_api_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the returned api_key, the single-display nature, and the secure-storage requirement. It does not mention permissions, revocability, or consequences of creating multiple keys, which leaves some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentences carry purpose, usage context, return value, and a security warning with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 core invocation context is present: what is created, for whom, why, and what to do with the result. Gaps remain around the ad_account_id parameter semantics and the precise relationship to the sibling create_api_key, but the description is adequate for a low-complexity creation tool.

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 schema documents the name parameter, but ad_account_id has no schema description. The description says 'for the ad account' without explicitly mapping that to ad_account_id or explaining whether it is optional/defaulted. With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate more heavily and does not.

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 identifies the operation as creating a Conversions API key for an ad account, and adds the distinguishing purpose of sending server-side events via bzr.openai.com outside this MCP. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling create_api_key, but the 'Conversions API key' scope provides reasonable differentiation.

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 gives practical usage context: use this tool when you need a Conversions API key for server-side events outside the MCP. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly name the create_api_key alternative, but the external-sending context is sufficient for basic routing.

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