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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: pause is immediate, activation starts spending, and activation requires a two-step preview/confirm handshake. It does not say whether pausing is reversible without side effects or what the preview card contains, keeping it short of a 5.

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 safety-critical fact (pause is immediate) and then the spending consequence plus the required call sequence. Nothing is redundant.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the confirm handshake is well covered but key gaps remain: how id_or_name is resolved across levels, what happens when multiple accounts exist, and whether pause requires confirmation too. Adequate minimum, not complete.

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 43% and several params (level, id_or_name, confirm) have no schema description. The description compensates for exactly one of these by explaining what confirm=true does and when to set it, but leaves name-vs-ID resolution, level selection, account/folder scoping, and language undocumented.

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 states the two concrete operations (pausing and activating) and their immediate effect, which lets an agent infer this is a status toggle. It never names the resource itself (campaign/ad set/ad) in the body – that only comes from the title – so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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 usefully distinguishes the two modes of use by telling the agent to preview, ask the user, then re-call with confirm=true. It gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like meta_remove or the platform-specific status tools, nor any prerequisite/scope conditions.

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