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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds important workflow context: this creates only a pending proposal and does not pause the campaign until a later confirmation step.

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?

The description is three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by identifier sourcing and the confirmation constraint. There is no wasted wording.

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?

Although an output schema and annotations exist, the input surface is large and entirely undocumented in the schema. The description names only a few identifiers and does not explain enough about the many optional parameters or the required setup for this tool to be complete given its complexity.

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?

The schema has 34 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description explains only the key identifier parameters campaign_id, google_customer_id, and meta_ad_account_id. Most parameters, including reason, platform, action, confirm, dry_run, and threshold-related fields, remain undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 and resource: creating a pending pause proposal for a selected Google/Meta campaign. It also distinguishes this from the sibling tool that actually performs the pause, automate_confirm_action.

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 clearly tells the agent where to obtain the campaign and account identifiers from (google_ads_get_campaigns / meta_ads_get_campaigns) and notes that the pause does not happen until automate_confirm_action. It does not explicitly compare against other proposal tools such as automate_propose_budget, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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