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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, non-read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely new behavior beyond annotations: it is a dry-run by default ('Previews unless confirm is true'), which an agent must know to avoid unintended changes.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action plus resource is front-loaded before the prerequisite and the preview caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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, open-world mutation with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the crucial preview/confirm semantics and ID sourcing, but omits the meaning of customer_id, whether REMOVED is permanent, and any permission requirements. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for five parameters. It sources ad_group_id and criterion_id and maps status onto pause/enable/remove, and explains confirm's preview role indirectly, but customer_id is never explained and confirm is only implied, leaving gaps.

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 a specific verb set (Pause, enable or remove) acting on a clearly bounded resource (one keyword). The keyword scope cleanly separates it from sibling status tools such as ads_set_ad_status and ads_set_campaign_status, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 provides one useful prerequisite ('Get ad_group_id and criterion_id from an ads_report query on the keyword_view resource'), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and never names an alternative tool. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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