update_ad_groupUpdate an ad group's name, description, status, context hints, or bidding configuration to keep campaign settings aligned with current strategy.
Update ad group name, description, context_hints, status, or bidding_config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Updated name | |
| status | No | ||
| ad_group_id | Yes | Ad group ID | |
| description | No | Updated description or null | |
| context_hints | No | ||
| max_bid_micros | No | ||
| billing_event_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that this is a mutating operation; it does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, whether changes are reversible, or whether any authorization or rate-limit conditions apply. For a write operation, this is a significant gap.
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 compact single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every listed item is relevant. However, the misleading 'bidding_config' term and the omission of required parameters reduce the structural value; it is concise but slightly inaccurate.
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?
With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description leaves out essentials: whether this is a partial update, that ad_group_id is required, what the two bidding-related fields actually do, and how this relates to set_ad_group_state. An agent would need to inspect the schema and sibling tools to safely invoke it.
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 43%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only partially does. It maps name, description, context_hints, and status to their intent, yet it refers to 'bidding_config' while the schema actually exposes max_bid_micros and billing_event_type, and it omits ad_group_id entirely. This introduces ambiguity instead of clarifying the bidding parameter group.
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?
States a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('ad group'), and enumerates fields, making it clear this is a mutation tool for ad groups rather than campaigns or ads. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling set_ad_group_state, which also handles status changes, and the phrase 'bidding_config' doesn't match any actual schema property.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus similar siblings like set_ad_group_state or update_campaign. The description only lists updatable fields and never mentions partial-update behavior, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.