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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the dry-run default ('Previews unless confirm is true'), which the agent cannot learn from the annotations or schema. It does not say whether REMOVED is irreversible, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the action and scope front-loaded before the identifier-sourcing and confirm caveat. Every sentence adds distinct information.

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 5-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the preview/confirm gate, identifier provenance, and the three target states. What is missing is whether removal is permanent and what the tool returns on preview vs. execution, but the core call-correctness information is present.

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 description coverage is 0% across 5 params, so the description must carry weight. It explains the confirm flag's preview semantics and where ad_group_id/ad_id come from, compensating for the undocumented schema. customer_id and the status enum values are left entirely to the schema, and the enum itself is self-explanatory.

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?

Opens with a specific verb set (pause/enable/remove) and a precise resource scope ('one ad'), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like ads_set_campaign_status and ads_set_keyword_status that operate on other entities.

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?

Tells the agent where to source the two key identifiers ('Get ad_group_id and ad_id from an ads_report query on the ad_group_ad resource'), which is real procedural guidance. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the campaign/keyword status siblings, leaving that to inference from the scope wording.

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