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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint false) and idempotency (idempotentHint true). The description adds 'Turns spend ON' which confirms the state change, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or behavior for already-active entities.

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?

The description is very concise (two short sentences) with no extraneous words. However, it could include brief parameter notes without becoming overly long.

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?

Given two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits explanation of meta_account_id, does not specify behavior for multiple IDs, and lacks details on prerequisites or errors.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains campaign_ids as IDs of paused entities but does not mention meta_account_id at all, leaving that parameter's purpose unclear.

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 clearly states the action (resume/activate), the resource (paused campaigns/ad sets/ads), and the effect (turns spend ON). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pause_campaigns.

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?

The description implies use for resuming paused entities but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternatives beyond what can be inferred from the sibling list.

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