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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-read, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: it runs Google validate-only, saves a private draft plus a complete affected-resource snapshot, and explicitly does NOT send the change — the key fact an agent needs to avoid assuming the mutation happened.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and behavior, ending with the required next action. No filler or redundant restatement of 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does explain the artifact produced (a private draft, validated, with a resource snapshot) and how to act on it. The remaining gap is the unexamined 'supported ad' restriction and how the agent should verify eligibility.

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% (only customer_id is documented; body fields and connection_context are not). The description partially compensates by identifying the target as a single supported ad and its status values, but it never explains customer_id format, connection_context, or what 'supported' excludes. Baseline 3 given the partial compensation.

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 ('Prepare to change ... ad's status to PAUSED or ENABLED'), scopes it to 'one supported ad', and names the enum values. It is clearly distinguishable from its confirm sibling, which it names explicitly.

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 lays out the full workflow condition: call this to stage the change, show the draft for explicit approval, then call google_ads_ad_status_update_confirm. Use-of-alternative is explicit rather than implied.

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