ads_google_ads_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the critical safety fact that it never writes to Google Ads, which is genuinely useful. But it says nothing about whether local rows are upserted or replaced, permission/auth requirements for customer_id, rate limits, or what happens on partial failure.

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 tight sentences with the read/persist distinction front-loaded and the safety caveat second; no filler whatsoever.

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 five-parameter, zero-coverage, no-annotation, no-output-schema sync tool, the description is far too thin — it leaves date-window semantics, project scoping, overwrite behavior, and required account identifiers entirely unexplained.

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 0% and five parameters (from, to, project_id, customer_id, login_customer_id) are completely undocumented. The description adds no meaning to any of them — not the date format or default window for from/to, not what project_id scopes, not the manager-account role of login_customer_id.

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 concrete verb-pair and resource: read Google Ads metrics, then persist normalized campaign/spend/conversion data into local SQLite. This distinguishes it from the pure-read sibling ads_google_ads_report by naming the persistence side effect, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it should run sync before querying local analytics, but the description never says when to prefer this over ads_google_ads_report or the parallel ads_microsoft_ads_sync / ads_yandex_direct_sync tools, nor any prerequisites.

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