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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the operation is a staging step whose application is permanent, the account is not mutated, and the return includes a preview the agent should surface. This is consistent with destructiveHint=false (the proposal itself is not destructive) and readOnlyHint=false (a proposal is created), but the description could say more about whether a proposal expires or can be replaced.

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 core action and the safety-critical constraint ('applying it is permanent') before the follow-up workflow. No wasted words.

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 staged-mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs: intent, non-mutation of the account, return shape, and the confirmation gate for apply_change. A minor gap is guidance on what happens if a proposal is never applied or re-proposed, but that is peripheral.

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 the platform enum list, entity_id format (Taboola campaign_id:item_id), and account_id requirements are already fully documented. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the returned proposal_id, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Stage deleting a campaign') and immediately clarifies scope: it does not change the account, it returns a proposal_id and preview. This distinguishes it cleanly from apply_change, which is the sibling that actually performs the deletion.

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 an explicit workflow rule: show the preview and call apply_change(proposal_id) only after the user confirms. That is actionable sequencing guidance, though it does not explicitly exclude or compare against alternative staging tools like propose_update_campaign or propose_delete_ad_set.

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