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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and open-world, but the description adds critical context beyond them: ACTIVE starts spending real money on the ad account and requires explicit user confirmation. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure an agent needs before invoking a financially risky mutation.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important risk warning, making it easy to scan.

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 6-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the critical safety angle but leaves parameter distinctions and alternative-tool guidance unaddressed. It is adequate to prevent reckless activation, but not complete for confident invocation across all parameters.

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 only 33%. The description reiterates the ACTIVE/PAUSED enum already present in the schema and hints that objectId may be an ad or ad set, but it does not explain the required adAccountId format (act_ prefix), how to choose objectId, or the role of optional campaignRecordId.

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: 'Set an ad or ad set to ACTIVE or PAUSED.' This is clear and actionable, but it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like ads_update_account or ads_create_campaign.

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 a strong prerequisite for ACTIVE ('never activate without the user's explicit confirmation of the budget and dates'), which implies when to use it. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling status-update or account-update tools.

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