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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds genuine context beyond that by clarifying the blast radius — only this campaign's serving stops, the asset and its other links are untouched — and that removal is refused rather than silently performed. That materially softens the alarming destructiveHint and prevents an agent from over-warning the user.

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 effect, then the constraint, then the navigation hint, then per-parameter detail. No sentence is redundant, and the argument block is compact rather than prose-heavy.

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 5-required-parameter mutation with no schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose, preconditions, per-parameter formats and constraints. An output schema exists, so the brief return note (updated link resource names) is sufficient rather than required detail.

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 0% (bare titles only), so the description carries the full burden and does: it specifies the customer_id format (numbers only, no hyphens), the cross-parameter constraint that all asset_ids must share one field_type and belong to the campaign, and enumerates the field_type and status values.

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 (pauses / re-enables) and a precise resource scope (assets linked to one campaign), which cleanly separates it from set_ad_group_asset_status and set_customer_asset_status in the sibling list. The parenthetical examples of asset types (phone number, sitelink, callout) make the object concrete.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Use list_asset_links first to find the campaign, asset IDs and field type') and an explicit exclusion (REMOVED is refused). It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the ad-group or customer-level status siblings, but the 'one campaign' scope makes that inference easy.

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