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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the crucial clarification that this call does not change delivery – i.e. it writes a draft rather than mutating the account. It also names the artifacts returned (approval_ref, plan_digest) and the required authorized-account context.

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 action and outcome, followed by the approval handoff and the routing hint in three tight sentences. The trailing fragment "Prefer entities_prepare_update for new work" is terse to the point of being slightly ambiguous, but nothing is wasted.

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?

The approval workflow, non-delivery guarantee, and downstream tool are all covered, and an output schema exists so return values need no prose. The gap is the undocumented parameter set, which leaves the agent guessing on connection_context and status value semantics.

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% across 4 parameters, so the schema supplies names and types but no meaning. The description adds nothing about campaign_id, ad_account_id, connection_context, or which values target_configured_status accepts, so the low-coverage burden is not met.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Prepare one campaign status change") plus the two-step workflow it belongs to (read settings, save approval draft). It explicitly distinguishes itself from operations_confirm_campaign_status and entities_prepare_update, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Explicit that the change is applied only after approval via operations_confirm_campaign_status, and it redirects new work to entities_prepare_update. It doesn't disambiguate against the parallel adsets_prepare_status_change / ads_prepare_status_change siblings, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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