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

Annotations already cover the destructive, non-idempotent, open-world profile, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it re-reads before acting, delegates the mutation to soclo_ads_update_ad_campaign_status, reads provider status back, manual launch does not require Ads Watch, and failures must not be retried. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the action and every sentence carries signal (workflow, exclusions, recovery). The middle sentence is a long multi-clause run-on that compresses several instructions together, which costs some readability without adding padding.

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, non-idempotent activation tool with no output schema and 12 loosely-described params, the description supplies the prerequisite chain, the exclusion set, the downstream/read-back behavior, and the failure-recovery path. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 only 17% across 12 params, so the description must compensate. It does name and give meaning to the critical ones — approvalHash ('exact candidate'), account/campaign or OpenAI ad, platform, current budget amount/type/currency, and confirmed:true — but leaves adId, adAccountId, countries, and requestId unaddressed. Strong compensation with a residual gap.

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 — 'Activates the paused campaign' — and frames it as the confirm step of a preview-driven launch flow, so it is unmistakably distinct from siblings like soclo_campaign_chat_preview and soclo_ads_update_ad_campaign_status. An agent can identify this as the activation gate without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit prerequisites and exclusions: only after a 'fresh soclo_campaign_chat_preview', pass confirmed:true, no new campaign / changed targeting / guessed price / automatic payment, and unknown activation must be read back with soclo_campaign_chat_status rather than retried. Both the when and the when-not conditions are spelled out with named alternatives.

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