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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's added value is the two-step preview-then-confirm gate, the requestId reuse requirement, and the spending/deletion caution. That is meaningful operational context beyond the annotations, though the 'Claim live only when status is active' clause is terse and rewards guesswork.

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?

Four compact clauses with the purpose and the confirm gate front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' fragment is opaque and slightly degrading, and the telegraphic style ('Spending/deletion: preview') costs a little readability.

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 covers the approval workflow, idempotent recovery via requestId, and the locking of approved budget/currency expectations. It omits what happens to a currently-paused ad set on resume and whether to follow up with soclo_ads_operation_status, so it is strong but not complete.

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 adds semantics for confirm ('owner-approved confirm:true') and requestId (reuse for confirmation/recovery) plus an implicit status mapping from pause/resume. The expectedCurrency/expectedBudgetType/expectedBudgetAmount preview-verification parameters and adSetId routing are left entirely to the schema.

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 pair and resource: 'Pause or resume a single ad set', which an agent can distinguish from the broader soclo_ads_update_ad_set and the campaign/ad-level status siblings. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the flow ('preview, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId') but never says when to pick this over soclo_ads_update_ad_set, soclo_ads_update_ad_status, or soclo_ads_bulk_update_ad_campaign_status. The conditional 'Claim live only when status is active' hints at a usage constraint but is not spelled out.

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