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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the preview/confirm gate, the real-world cost consequence of ENABLED (resumes spending), the irreversibility of REMOVED, and that the preview surface includes landing_pages. What it does not cover is scope/permissions on customer_id, which matters for an openWorldHint write; the annotations already carry destruction and idempotency.

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 sentences, no filler, and the ordering is right: what it does, then the safety gate, then the consequences and the pre-confirm check. Every clause carries operational 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 4-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's consequences, the confirmation protocol, and the preview content. The remaining gap is where customer_id/campaign_id come from (e.g. ads_list_accounts) and any hint of the returned preview shape.

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 25%, so the description must carry weight — and it does for status, attaching consequences to each enum value (ENABLED resumes spend, REMOVED is permanent) that the bare enum list does not convey. customer_id and campaign_id remain entirely unexplained in both schema and description, which keeps this off a 5.

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 and resource: "Pause, enable or remove a Google Ads campaign." The resource is unambiguous relative to sibling mutations like ads_set_ad_status and ads_set_keyword_status, so an agent can pick the campaign-level tool without opening schemas.

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 an explicit operating procedure: it runs as a preview unless confirm is true, and for ENABLED the agent must show landing_pages to the person and ask before confirming. It also names the condition that makes a status unsafe (REMOVED cannot be undone), so the agent knows when not to act casually.

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