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

Goes beyond the annotations by tying confirmation specifically to the ENABLED direction (the schema's confirm field says only 'this change', not which direction), and by stating the change is reversible rather than a delete. There is mild tension with destructiveHint=true, but 'destructive' here plausibly covers any state mutation, so it is not a contradiction. It still says nothing about what happens to serving or how failures surface.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the non-destructive guarantee and the confirmation rule. No filler or 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?

No output schema exists, so the description ideally would say what comes back (the resulting status) and what happens for an already-paused asset. For a six-parameter, open-world mutation tool the guidance on confirmation and reversibility is the right core, but the unresolved `type` and identifier semantics leave real gaps.

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 only 33% (6 params, only account and confirm documented), so the description must carry the load and largely does not: asset_id, campaign_id and especially `type` are unexplained, and there is no hint that `type` must match the asset's actual type or where to obtain asset_id (e.g. google_ads_assets). The only added meaning is the implicit mapping of 'call asset' to the CALL enum and 'pause/re-enable' to PAUSED/ENABLED.

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 concrete verb pair (pause / re-enable) against a specific resource (a campaign's asset link), and the parenthetical 'e.g. a call asset outside working hours' pins down the resource further. It implicitly separates itself from remove-asset siblings via 'without deleting it', though it never names google_ads_remove_assets or google_ads_assets as the alternative paths.

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 call-asset-off-hours example gives a usable scenario, and 'without deleting it' nudges the agent away from removal tools. However, no sibling is named explicitly, and there is no guidance on distinguishing this from google_ads_set_status or google_ads_add_assets, leaving the choice to inference.

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