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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the preview-then-confirm workflow and that activation resumes spending within minutes. The only gap is that the preview's return shape is described only loosely as 'the campaign's current state'.

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, front-loaded with the action set followed by the riskiest behavioral caveat. The confirm workflow sentence partially restates the schema's confirm description, which is the only redundancy.

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 mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the operational protocol, a timing side effect, and an irreversibility warning. What is missing is any hint about the preview payload or permission/scope requirements.

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 33%, so the description has to carry load: it maps the three status enum values to plain verbs and clarifies the confirm toggle's two-phase purpose, but campaign_id is left entirely undocumented and no ID format is given. Partial compensation deserves the baseline 3.

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 specific verbs (pause, activate, archive) against a specific resource (Meta campaign), which cleanly separates it from meta_set_campaign_budget and ads_set_ad_status. An agent knows exactly which mutation family this belongs to 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?

Gives an explicit two-call protocol (preview without confirm, then confirm: true after human agreement) and flags the irreversible ARCHIVED case. It does not compare itself to sibling tools, but the when-to-use/when-to-be-careful guidance is explicit and actionable.

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