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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful consequence detail beyond them: the campaign resumes spending at its existing daily budget, which is the key financial risk an agent should know. It doesn't add auth or rate-limit context, so not a full 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The action and its immediate consequence (spending resumes) are front-loaded, and the usage condition follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, financial consequence, and trigger condition adequately. A minor gap is that it doesn't say what happens if the campaign is already ENABLED (idempotent behaviour is only implied by annotations).

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 100% with a single parameter, so the schema already documents googleCampaignId fully. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 back to ENABLED) and resource (paused Google Ads campaign), and explicitly contrasts with pause_campaign, which is the sibling it mirrors. An agent can distinguish it from pause_campaign and edit_campaign_draft without opening either 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?

The third sentence gives an explicit triggering condition: re-enable a campaign that pause_campaign or the publish_campaign_to_google_ads flow left in PAUSED state. The 'when to use' is unambiguous and tied to concrete prior actions.

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