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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the dry-run contract: a plan_id is returned, target status is PAUSED, warnings such as 'already paused' are surfaced, and no mutation occurs until confirmation. Auth/permission requirements and warning semantics are still unspecified.

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?

Three short, information-dense blocks: the preview outcome first, the mechanism second, the doc link last. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 preview-generating mutation tool with an output schema present, this covers everything an agent needs: what is produced (plan_id, status, warnings), that no side effect occurs yet, and which tool finishes the job. Return-value detail is correctly deferred to the output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents entity_id, entity_type, and ad_account_id sources. The description restates the three entity types but adds no format, default, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (draft pausing) plus the exact resources (Reddit campaign, ad group, ad) and immediately flags that it returns a PREVIEW. An agent can distinguish it from the confirm_and_apply and enable_reddit_entity siblings without reading either 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?

Explicitly explains the two-step flow: nothing changes until confirm_and_apply applies the plan_id, which tells the agent this is the drafting half of a pair. It does not contrast against enable_reddit_entity or remove_reddit_entity, so the exclusions are not fully enumerated.

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