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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds two things they cannot: that the call runs as a validated preview unless confirm is true, and that removing is irreversible in Google Ads while enabling resumes spending. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation set.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the two riskiest behavioral facts (preview gate, irreversibility). No filler and nothing that merely restates the title.

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?

With no output schema and coverage that leaves identifiers undocumented, the description covers the decision-relevant facts: what changes, preview default, and irreversibility. Return-value detail is the only omission, and it is minor for this mutation tool.

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 by mapping the status enum to English actions (pause/enable/remove) and clarifying the confirm gate semantics. customer_id and campaign_id remain self-evident identifiers with no further explanation needed.

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 (set status) plus resource (Google Ads campaign) and enumerates the three outcomes (pause, enable, remove). The 'campaign' scope implicitly distinguishes it from ads_set_ad_status, which targets ads, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Clearly frames the operation as a preview-by-default action gated by confirm, which tells the agent how and when the call takes effect. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the read-only ads_campaign_state sibling, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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