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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds material context they cannot express: the action is irreversible (cannot be resumed), unspent reservations settle only after the final daily report and at least 48 hours after ending, and no instant refund occurs. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a destructive tool needs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its two modes, then the irreversible consequence, then the settlement/refund timing. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information with no padding.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: destructiveness, non-resumability, and delayed fund settlement. The remaining gap is the provenance/format of campaignId, which the schema does not supply.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description carries the full burden of clarifying campaignId — and it says nothing about it. It neither identifies the ID's source (e.g., from get_chatgpt_ads or list_ad_campaigns) nor whether it must reference a draft versus a live campaign, which matters given the tool's dual behavior.

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 and resource ('End a ChatGPT draft or archive a launched campaign') and distinguishes its two operational modes by campaign state. An agent can tell it apart from edit_chatgpt_ad or update_chatgpt_ad_budget at a glance.

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 conveys the operative condition for choosing this tool — permanence ('It cannot be resumed.') — which implicitly steers an agent toward pause_chatgpt_ad for reversible stopping. However, it never names that alternative or states an explicit when-not condition, so the routing is only implied.

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