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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: it verifies effective_status and rejects DISAPPROVED, which is beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on rejection (error? no-op?) or whether the update is reversible.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the key guardrail. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the guardrail), but it is appropriately sized.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and annotations, which reduce the burden on the description. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description leaves the semantics of current_configured_status and the rejection behavior unclear. For a status-update tool, an agent would benefit from knowing whether current_configured_status is a precondition or an output.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'ad-set status' and 'DISAPPROVED', which maps loosely to target_configured_status and current_configured_status, but it does not explain the role of adset_id, ad_account_id, or the difference between target_configured_status and current_configured_status. The enum values are self-explanatory, but the relationship between the two status params is not.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('ad-set status'), and adds a behavioral constraint ('verify effective_status and reject DISAPPROVED'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like overview_update_ad_status (singular ad status) and overview_update_campaign_status, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies when to use this tool: when updating an ad set's configured status, with a guard against DISAPPROVED. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., overview_update_ad_statuses for bulk updates, overview_update_confirm/deny for approval flows). The context is inferable but not explicit.

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