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

Annotations declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds non-obvious context: the effect is immediate ('stops spending immediately') and the action is reversible via resume_campaign, which softens the destructive framing. It does not cover permissions or whether paused state affects reporting, 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the state change, then reversibility, effect, and usage condition. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, reversibility, and usage trigger; annotations already carry the safety profile. Nothing needed to invoke 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains the numeric Google Ads id and how to obtain it. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Set status to PAUSED) and resource (Google Ads campaign), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings resume_campaign and the delete tools. An agent can tell exactly what this does 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?

Explicit when-to-use clause ('when the user wants to halt spend on a specific campaign without deleting it'), names the alternative sibling resume_campaign as the reversal path, and implicitly contrasts with deletion. Routing is unambiguous.

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