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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false but leave the agent guessing what 'not read-only but not destructive' means. The description resolves that precisely: no account change occurs, a proposal_id and preview are returned, and mutation happens only via apply_change. It also discloses the platform-dependent pausing behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its key constraint, followed by the return value and the follow-up procedure. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

There is an output schema, yet the description still flags the two return values an agent must act on (proposal_id, preview). Combined with the confirmation workflow, nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so platform, fields, and account_id are already documented in the schema, including the currency-unit convention and the unknown-field fallback. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Stage a new campaign') and immediately clarifies the scope ('paused where the platform allows'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like propose_create_ad_set and propose_update_campaign, and from apply_change, which it names explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit routing: call this to stage, then 'call apply_change(proposal_id) only after the user confirms.' The when-to-use and the when-to-escalate-to-a-sibling are both spelled out, along with the required user-confirmation gate.

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