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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the two-step preview-then-owner-approval flow and the requestId reuse contract for confirmation/recovery, which an agent couldn't infer from annotations alone.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the middle sentence ("Claim live only when status is active") is opaque, and the trailing "Fields: soclo://tools/..." points to an external resource rather than earning its place with inline information.

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?

With 10 params, deep nested payload, no output schema, and no return/outcome detail beyond the vague "claim live" phrase, the description is thin. It covers the approval mechanics but leaves the updateable field set and result semantics to the schema.

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 60% and the description only echoes the confirm/requestId relationship that the schema also documents. It adds no meaning for the many payload fields (budget, bidStrategy, networkSettings, targetImpressionShare), so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb+resource ("Update a campaign") but essentially restates the title. It never specifies what aspects it updates (budget, bid, network, tracking) versus siblings like soclo_ads_update_ad_campaign_status or soclo_ads_bulk_update_ad_campaign_status, so an agent still needs to open the schema to distinguish.

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?

Adds real workflow guidance for spending/deletion (preview, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId), which is useful when-not-style context. However it gives no routing between sibling update tools, and "Claim live only when status is active" is too cryptic to guide selection.

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