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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description could have coasted. Instead it adds the two things an agent cannot infer: that activation spends real money and that the operation is two-phase (preview, then confirm=true after the user says yes). That is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations lack.

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, no filler. The safety-critical information (activation spends money, confirmation protocol) is placed second only after the basic purpose, and every clause carries actionable content.

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, money-affecting mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essential safety protocol and warns about the preview step. It stops short of describing what the preview contains or whether a paused campaign restores prior budget/schedule on reactivation, which would help an agent set expectations.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description supplies the critical missing meaning for the undocumented 'confirm' boolean and the money-spending consequence of status=ACTIVE. The remaining undocumented parameters (campaign_id, status enum) are self-evident, and account/folder/language already carry schema descriptions, so the gap is minor.

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 verb (pause / turn on) against a specific resource (a Snapchat campaign) and names the two resulting states. The campaign scope in the name implicitly separates it from the generic snapchat_set_status sibling, though the description never says so explicitly.

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?

Gives clear usage context: pausing is immediate, whereas turning on requires a preview first and a second confirm=true call only after explicit user approval. It does not state when to reach for a sibling (e.g. snapchat_set_status for ads or ad squads), but the when-to-use condition for its own two modes is unambiguous.

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