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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: pausing takes effect immediately, while enabling is gated on user confirmation in chat — an authorization requirement the agent would otherwise have to infer from the confirm field alone.

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 primary action and scope, followed by the exclusion and the confirmation rule. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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, 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, sibling routing, immediacy, and the confirmation gate. It stops short of stating whether the confirmation requirement is enforced by the tool or by convention, and does not describe what happens for an invalid ID or mismatched level/ad_group_id combination.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters including the confirm field. The sentence 'enabling needs the user's confirmation in chat' reinforces confirm semantics but adds no detail about level, ad_group_id, reason, or account beyond what the schema states, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb pair (pause/enable) and enumerates the exact resources affected: ad group, ad, keyword. It explicitly excludes campaigns and routes them to google_ads_pause_campaign / google_ads_enable_campaign, so an agent can distinguish this from the closest siblings without opening 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?

It gives an explicit when-not rule (campaigns go elsewhere) with named alternatives, plus a procedural condition that enabling requires user chat confirmation. It does not mention google_ads_bulk_status, which is the other plausible alternative for changing multiple entity statuses, so the routing is not exhaustive.

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