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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond annotations — that the tool verifies effective_status and rejects DISAPPROVED. This is useful, but it doesn't disclose side effects, permission/ownership requirements, or what happens on rejection, leaving a moderate gap for a mutation tool.

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?

A single two-clause sentence with zero filler and the core action front-loaded. Minor deduction because it is terse to the point of omitting useful parameter context, but the structure itself is clean and direct for many lines of filler in comparable MCP tools.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It fails to explain the two status fields, what 'verify effective_status' means operationally, or what the rejection response looks like. An output schema exists, so return values don't need description, but the input and validation behavior gaps make this incomplete for reliable invocation.

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, and it names no parameters. It doesn't explain the role of target_configured_status vs. current_configured_status, nor how campaign_id and ad_account_id relate. The only indirect hint is that 'status' maps to the two configured_status enums; the DISAPPROVED rejection presumably concerns configured/effective status but this is unstated. Description fails to compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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?

'Update campaign status' states a clear verb and resource, and the campaign noun distinguishes it from siblings like overview_update_adset_status and overview_update_ad_status. The additional 'verify effective_status and reject DISAPPROVED' clause adds a distinctive behavior, though it doesn't fully specify what the rejection entails (error vs. no-op).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling update tools (budget, adset, ad status). No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no context about when the DISAPPROVED rejection path applies. Usage context is only implied by the campaign noun in the name.

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