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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real value: the mandate for a preview followed by owner-approved confirm:true and reuse of the same requestId, plus the spend-activation caveat. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Front-loads the purpose in a single clause and keeps the whole thing to a few dense sentences. The trailing 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' reference is cryptic jargon that consumes space without clarifying much.

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 10-parameter nested mutation tool with no output schema and only 60% coverage, the description covers the critical confirm/requestId workflow but omits the budget-guard parameters (expectedBudget*) and account scoping, which an agent needs to supply correctly.

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?

At 60% schema coverage, the description clarifies confirm:true semantics, the requestId reuse rule, and implies the active/paused enum via 'status is active.' It does not touch expectedCurrency, expectedBudgetType, expectedBudgetAmount, or the accountId/adAccountId distinction, so several complex params remain unexplained.

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 pair and resource: 'Pause or resume a campaign' — clearly a single-campaign status mutation. This distinguishes it from soclo_ads_update_ad_campaign (general update) and soclo_ads_bulk_update_ad_campaign_status (batch), though it never names those siblings 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?

Describes the preview→confirm workflow and notes 'Claim live only when status is active,' which implies when spending implications apply. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this versus bulk_update_ad_campaign_status or update_ad_set_status, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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