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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is signalled structurally. The description adds that the action is a status toggle between ENABLED and PAUSED, but does not say what pausing actually does (stops serving ads/incurs no spend), whether it requires the campaign to be enabled first, or whether the change is idempotent or reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the parameter detail. No filler. Mixed language (German description with English tool/annotation names) and the run-on 'workspace:' fragment slightly reduce polish.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and all key parameters are covered. What is missing for a destructive mutation is effect context: what pausing means operationally for the account, and any prerequisite state. Adequate but with a clear behavioral gap.

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 0% and the schema even lacks an enum on 'status', so the description carries real weight: it enumerates the accepted values ENABLED and PAUSED and explains that 'workspace' is a customer workspace slug that is optional when only one workspace exists. Only 'campaign_id' is left undescribed, which is largely self-evident.

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: 'Kampagne aktivieren oder pausieren' (activate or pause a campaign). This clearly separates it from siblings like ads_update_campaign_name, ads_update_campaign_settings or ads_remove_campaign, 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?

Usage is implied by the status toggle, but there is no guidance on when to use this vs. ads_update_campaign_settings, ads_remove_campaign (deletion) or ads_bulk_update_keyword_status-style bulk operations. No prerequisites or warnings about pausing a live campaign are given.

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