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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety bar is partly met. The description adds a genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: confirm=false yields a dry-run, which is critical for a destructive mutation. It still does not spell out that pausing halts live delivery immediately or what happens to in-flight spend.

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-loaded with the core action, then the status vocabulary, then the sibling disclaimer and dry-run note. The synonym lists (resume/unpause/reactivate/start) add matching value but inflate length somewhat; still no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers direction, status values, and dry-run safety. Adequate for a destructive mutation, though it leaves the identifier parameters and the downstream effect of pausing unexplained.

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 0% and the schema declares `status` as a bare string with no enum, so the description's disclosure of the ENABLED/PAUSED vocabulary is high-value and compensates for the missing enum. It also clarifies `confirm` as the dry-run switch. But customer_id and campaign_id receive no semantic explanation at all, so half the parameters remain bare.

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+resource (turn a Google Ads campaign ON/OFF) and enumerates the exact status values that drive it. It distinguishes itself from resume/enable siblings explicitly. However, it omits that a sibling `pause_campaign` actually exists in the toolset, so the claim that it is 'the tool for BOTH directions' is not fully reconciled with the sibling list.

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 clear operational context: use it to launch campaigns created paused for safety, and the status string selects direction. It does not tell the agent when to prefer this over the existing `pause_campaign` sibling or which one wins on conflict, leaving a routing ambiguity.

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