Preview resuming a paused targeting keyword before applying changes. Validates profile, ad account, and keyword ID to confirm the resume outcome safely.
Preview resuming one targeting keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| profile | Yes | local Apple Ads profile name | |
| adAccountId | Yes | Apple Ads ad account ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| preview | No | ||
| summary | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that this is a preview of resuming rather than an actual resume, but it does not explain what the preview returns, what it validates, or any prerequisites beyond the schema.
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 single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for structural clues about usage or prerequisites.
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 tool benefits from rich annotations and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it omits any mention of how the preview relates to applying changes or what an agent should do next, leaving a contextual gap for a preview-style workflow.
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 description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, and schema description coverage is only 67% because the required 'id' parameter has no description. With a meaningful gap in schema documentation and no compensating text in the description, parameter semantics are weak.
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 states a specific verb ('resuming'), resource ('targeting keyword'), and operation mode ('preview'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings such as keyword_pause_preview and keyword_update_preview. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this preview versus alternatives such as keyword_pause_preview, keyword_update_preview, or operations_apply. The preview nature is implied only by the word 'Preview' and the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.