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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: spending/deletion impact, the need for a preview and owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId, and the status condition for going live. It does not detail what exactly gets destroyed (e.g., campaign delivery) or auth requirements, but provides meaningful supplement beyond annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by critical safety workflow. The final line 'Fields: soclo://...' is cryptic and may not earn its place, but overall it is appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 bulk tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits the structure of the 'payload' (campaigns array, max 50, platform enum), the role of accountId and budget fields, and how to handle errors. The brief mention of a fields URI does not compensate for the missing explanation, leaving an agent under-informed.

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 60%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the 'confirm' and 'requestId' parameters by explaining the preview/approval flow, but does not clarify the required 'payload' structure (campaigns array, maxItems, platform enum) or the expected budget fields. Beyond those few parameters, it leaves the schema to carry the burden.

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 ('Pause or resume') and resource ('many campaigns'), and the use of 'many' implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling tool soclo_ads_update_ad_campaign_status. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or clarify the bulk scope beyond the word 'many'.

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 provides a clear prerequisite workflow: 'Spending/deletion: preview, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId' and a condition: 'Claim live only when status is active.' It does not state when to use this bulk tool versus the single-campaign status update or other sibling tools, leaving some inference.

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