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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real value: it explicitly warns 'Changes external Meta advertising state and may affect spend' and discloses the guard-rail behavior ('rejects other operation kinds before reserving or applying anything'). Reversibility and any rate/limit behavior remain unstated.

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 the precondition and the action, then the binding constraint, then the side effect. No filler, though the sentence order could place the spend warning slightly earlier for skimming.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the approval precondition, plan binding, and external-effect warning, leaving only the connection_context param and explicit sibling routing as gaps.

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 param burden. It successfully explains that approval_ref and expected_plan_digest bind the call to a stored plan, but connection_context is never mentioned and no format/validity semantics are added beyond the regexes.

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?

It names a specific verb+resource ('change delivery status of one Meta ad set') and the singular scope distinguishes it from the plural siblings (operations_confirm_ad_statuses) and from adjacent operations (adset_bid, adset_budget, campaign_status). An agent can route to it without opening the 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?

The gating condition is explicit ('After explicit user approval') and the constraint that it only honors the stored plan selected by approval_ref/expected_plan_digest clarifies context. However it never names the prepare counterpart (adsets_prepare_status_change) or the deny alternative, so the alternative routing is left implicit.

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