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

Beyond the annotations, which already declare the mutation as destructive and idempotent, the description explains that a paused goal records no conversions and affects campaign performance reporting and automated bidding. It also mentions the return value (previous status) and recommends dryRun. This adds useful behavioral context, though it could say more about reversibility or permission requirements.

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 four short, front-loaded sentences. The action is stated first, followed by consequences, return value, and a safety recommendation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted text.

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 output schema, the description covers the key behavioral impacts: conversion loss, reporting changes, bidding effects, return value, and dryRun guidance. It does not explicitly address account-scoping (handled by the schema) or permission requirements, leaving a minor gap.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description mentions Active/Paused and dryRun, but these are already well covered by the enum and schema descriptions. It adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the structured fields provide, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Turn a conversion goal on (Active) or off (Paused).' It clearly identifies the object being changed. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling status-changing tools such as msads_set_status or msads_create_conversion_goal, so it falls short of the perfect sibling differentiation required for a 5.

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?

It gives a clear operational recommendation: 'Use dryRun first.' It also explains the consequence of pausing, which helps an agent understand when the tool is appropriate. It does not state when-not to use it or name alternative tools, keeping it below a 5.

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