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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation is bound to a stored plan, other operation kinds are rejected before reserving or applying anything, and the change affects external Meta advertising state with possible spend impact.

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-loads the critical precondition ('After explicit user approval') and delivers the plan-binding and side-effect facts in three tight sentences with no filler. Every clause contributes selection-relevant 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 need no explanation, and the annotations cover the destructive/open-world profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented connection_context parameter, which an agent would need to supply on some calls.

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 three parameters carry no inline documentation. The description explains the roles of approval_ref (selects the stored plan) and expected_plan_digest (the expected plan fingerprint), but leaves connection_context completely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('change delivery status of one Meta campaign') with explicit scope ('one'), which separates it from batch siblings like operations_confirm_ad_statuses and from the prepare/deny counterparts. The clause about rejecting other operation kinds further pins down what this tool actually executes.

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 a clear precondition ('After explicit user approval') and identifies the workflow inputs ('stored plan selected by approval_ref and expected_plan_digest'), implying this runs after a prepare step. It stops short of explicitly naming operations_deny_approval or the campaigns_prepare_status_change sibling as the alternatives.

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