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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context: activation starts real ad spend, requires human approval, and sends exactly once on approve. It also clarifies that pausing stops spend. This goes beyond the annotations and leaves no ambiguity about side effects or approval requirements.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: it states the action, the risk, the human requirement, when to use, and the approval workflow. It is front-loaded with the most critical information (spend and human requirement) and avoids any filler.

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 the tool's high-stakes nature (real spend, human approval), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage trigger, approval flow, and behavioral constraints. There is no output schema, but the description doesn't need to explain return values. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% and every parameter (status, companyId, object_id) is already well-documented in the schema. The description reinforces the status meaning (ACTIVE starts spend, PAUSED stops) but does not add new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Activate or pause a Meta campaign, ad set, or ad') with a clear verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by specifying Meta and describing the spend consequence. The description is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 states when to use it: 'after the user has reviewed a draft and explicitly says to launch, or asks to stop a running ad.' It also clearly says agents cannot activate and that every call needs manager approval, preventing misuse. The outbound-tier note explains the approval workflow precisely.

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