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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that activation starts real ad spend, that agents cannot activate without a human, and that every call queues its own approval card and sends exactly once on approve. This operational and safety context is not present in the annotations.

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 main sentence is front-loaded and efficient, and the outbound-tier block is high-signal because it encodes mandatory human approval and single-send behavior. No sentence is wasted for a high-stakes, destructive tool.

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 destructive, approval-gated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers when to call it, side effects, alternatives, and the approval protocol. The only omitted details, such as optional ad_account_id behavior and response shape, are either covered by the schema or unnecessary for invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description largely restates the status semantics already present in the schema ('ACTIVE' starts spend, 'PAUSED' stops spend) and adds no new parameter-level detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Activate or pause an X campaign or line item.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from set_meta_ad_status, removing any ambiguity about scope.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: use after the user has reviewed a paused X draft and explicitly asks to launch, or asks to stop a running X ad. It also names the sibling distinction from set_meta_ad_status and specifies the approval workflow for every call.

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