Build an on-demand bounded optimization plan for an Apple Ads ad account and profile without creating a receipt.
Build an on-demand bounded optimization plan without creating a receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy | Yes | ||
| profile | Yes | local Apple Ads profile name | |
| adAccountId | Yes | Apple Ads ad account ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | payload | |
| error | No | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| rateLimit | No | ||
| pagination | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it does not create a receipt. It does not explain what 'bounded' means, what the plan contains, or how the lack of a receipt affects subsequent operations, so the added context is limited.
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 efficient, though its terseness contributes to gaps in usage and parameter clarity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Even so, for an open-world optimization tool with three required parameters and close siblings, the description is too thin: it does not clarify the policy parameter, the meaning of 'bounded,' or how the plan relates to preview/apply/history tools.
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 provides no information about the three required parameters. Schema coverage is 67%, with profile and adAccountId documented but policy left undescribed. Because the description does not compensate for the missing policy semantics or add meaning beyond the schema, parameter support is 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Build an on-demand bounded optimization plan.' It also distinguishes itself behaviorally by saying 'without creating a receipt,' which separates it from an apply-style operation. However, it does not explicitly name or compare itself with the close sibling optimization_plan_preview, so sibling differentiation is only implied.
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 phrase 'on-demand' and 'without creating a receipt' hints at a dry-run/non-receipt use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus optimization_plan_preview, optimization_baseline, optimization_history, or operations_apply. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.