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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one useful fact beyond them — 'REMOVED is permanent' — but says nothing about spend implications of pausing, whether re-enabling restores prior state, or the interaction with validateOnly.

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 tightly written sentences with the scope stated first and the key permanence warning second; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse for the complexity, but every sentence earns its place and it is front-loaded.

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 destructive, open-world mutation taking 6 parameters, the description is thin: it omits the dry-run workflow, the customerId account-selection rule, and the extraFields escape hatch, all of which live only in the schema. Minimal but not fully adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is only 50%: customerId, extraFields, and validateOnly are well documented in the schema, while adId, status, and adGroupId have none. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half.

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 specific verb (change status) and resource (a single ad within its ad group), which cleanly separates it from update_ad_group and update_campaign_status siblings. The title further enumerates the three operations (enable, pause, remove). It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (changing one ad's status) and the title enumerates the enum values, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over update_ad_group or update_campaign_status, nor any prerequisite framing. Usage must be inferred from scope.

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