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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's clarification that 'this call does not change delivery' is valuable added context explaining the draft-only nature. It also names the returned approval_ref and plan_digest, going beyond the annotation surface.

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 compact sentences: purpose first, then the return/approval path, then the non-delivery assurance and alternative. No filler; every clause conveys actionable information.

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 needn't be re-explained, and the approval workflow is fully described. The main gap is the unexplained connection_context parameter, which the description ignores.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for four parameters, yet it explains none. The ad_id, ad_account_id, and especially the connection_context token format (a regex-constrained mctx_v1 string) are left entirely to the raw schema; only target_configured_status is self-documenting via its enum.

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 and resource ('prepare one ad status change') and situates it as stage one of an approval workflow. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling prepare/confirm tools like adsets_prepare_status_change and operations_confirm_ad_status.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'apply only after approval with operations_confirm_ad_status' and 'prefer entities_prepare_update for new work.' The when-to-use is clear, though the 'new work' phrasing is slightly ambiguous about exactly when the alternative applies.

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