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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: a two-step preview/confirm flow, requestId reuse for confirmation and outcome recovery, and a status precondition ('claim live only when status is active'). Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent, but the description usefully explains the approval gate and recovery mechanism.

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?

Front-loads 'Cancel an ad' and the safety workflow well, but includes cryptic fragments ('Claim live only when status is active', 'Fields: soclo://tools/...') that read as noise rather than useful signal.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description does cover the critical approval workflow, but it leaves half the parameters (including the target adId and platform) unexplained. An agent would still need to infer how to identify the ad to cancel.

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 50%. The description only mentions confirm and requestId, which the schema already documents, and leaves platform, accountId, adAccountId, and the nested adId unexplained. The 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' reference is opaque and conveys no parameter meaning.

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 ('Cancel an ad') that maps to ad deletion, which an agent can distinguish from most read/list siblings. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like soclo_ads_update_ad_status or soclo_ads_delete_ad_creative, and the title/name tension (cancel vs delete) is left unclarified.

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 a concrete workflow: preview first, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId, so it tells the agent how and in what sequence to call it. It stops short of naming when to prefer an alternative tool such as pausing via status update instead of cancelling.

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