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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that dry_run previews changes without making modifications and warns against activating without explicit user intent. It does not cover authentication, side effects, or failure behavior, but the key behavioral guardrails are present.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core operation in the first, dry_run behavior in the second, and the activation guardrail in the third. No filler or redundancy.

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 description plus schema provide enough to invoke the tool correctly for a batch status change, including batch limits and the dry_run option. However, because there is no output schema and no annotation, the description does not explain what the tool returns, what errors may occur, or what partial-failure behavior is expected. This is a notable gap for a mutating tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies entity_ids ('one or more... max 50'), entity_type ('campaigns, ad sets, or ads'), action ('pause' vs 'activate'), and dry_run semantics. ad_account_id is the only parameter not explained, though it is relatively self-explanatory.

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 action ('Pause or reactivate'), a clear resource ('Meta campaigns, ad sets, or ads'), and a batch capability. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like adsap_google_set_entity_status by explicitly scoping to Meta entities.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (pausing/reactivating Meta entities in batch) and provides an important guardrail: only use 'activate' when the user explicitly requested resume/reactivation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong.

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