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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it warns it 'changes your live account', explains the consequence ('Pausing stops spend'), and discloses the confirm:true safety gate. It stops short of stating reversibility or the response behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the [WRITE] warning, then packs action, scope, consequence and the confirm requirement into two tight sentences with no filler.

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, the definition covers what changes, what it costs (spend), and the safety gate, with annotations carrying the readOnly/destructive profile. Minor gaps remain on reversibility and return behavior, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the enum meaning for status, the object_id target, and the confirm gate are all already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'by id' and 'confirm:true' only restates structured fields, landing at the baseline.

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 action (pause/resume = set status) on a specific resource (Meta campaign, ad set or ad) identified by id. It is distinguishable from the create/get/list siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from meta_ads_update_campaign or meta_ads_update_ad_set, which could plausibly also touch status.

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 useful context ('Pausing stops spend', 'Requires confirm:true') that implies when this tool is the right choice, but offers no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance against the sibling update tools or any stated exclusions.

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