Google Ads MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'enable/resume' implies a state change, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., budget resumption), or what happens upon success/failure. This leaves significant 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?

The description is extremely concise with just four words, front-loading the essential action and target. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or response format. While concise, it fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use given the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'campaign_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('enable/resume') and target resource ('a paused campaign'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'pause_campaign' beyond the obvious opposite action, missing an opportunity to clarify their relationship.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the campaign must be paused), when not to use it (e.g., for active campaigns), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'pause_campaign' or 'update_campaign_budget'.

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