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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds key behavioral details: REMOVED is irreversible and Google rejects changes on trial campaigns. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand risks and limitations. No contradiction detected.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second warns about irreversibility, and the third gives a limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 status-update tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, source of IDs, and an important limitation. It could mention partial_failure behavior or batch limits, but the essential context is present. It is adequately complete for this tool's 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for unexplained parameters. It provides context for campaign_ids ('Pass campaign ids from google_ads_campaigns') and status is self-evident from the enum. However, account, customer_id, and partial_failure are not explained, leaving some parameters ambiguous. The description partially covers the gap but not fully.

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 clearly states the action (pause, enable, or remove) on a specific resource (Google Ads campaigns), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or budget updates. It is specific and actionable.

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 description provides context by instructing to pass campaign ids from google_ads_campaigns and notes a constraint (trial campaigns cannot be changed via API). It does not explicitly list exclusions but implies the appropriate use case for status changes. Sibling tool names make differentiation obvious.

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