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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing the concrete consequences: activating resumes spending within minutes (financial impact) and ARCHIVED cannot be undone from here (irreversibility). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before mutating a live ad campaign, and they are not present in the structured fields.

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 dense sentences with no filler: action scope first, then the required workflow, then the two risk-bearing consequences. Front-loaded and every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully explains the preview behavior (show current state to the human) so the agent understands what a non-confirmed call returns, and it flags the destructive path. Auth/permission requirements and any rate limits are unstated, keeping it short of full completeness.

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% (only confirm is described; campaign_id has no description anywhere). The description maps the three status enum values to pause/activate/archive and re-states the confirm workflow, but adds no syntax or identifier guidance for campaign_id, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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) on a named resource (Meta campaign), and the 'Meta' qualifier separates it from the identically-named Google sibling ads_set_campaign_status and from meta_set_campaign_budget. An agent can route between these 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 two-step call protocol: preview without confirm, show the state to the human, then re-call with confirm: true. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g. ads_set_campaign_status for Google) or exclusion cases, so not a full 5.

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