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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and readOnly=false, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the approval gate, the auto-policy limits, and the paused/no-spend default for new objects. These are the exact behavioral facts an agent needs to reason about side effects that annotations alone cannot convey.

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 resource and the op list, then the proposal/paused semantics in two tight sentences. The eleven-operation enumeration is long but load-bearing; nothing here is filler.

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?

Handles the highest-risk aspects (irreversibility, spend, approvals) for an eleven-operation destructive tool with no output schema, which is the right prioritization. Per-operation parameter shapes and the result of a proposal submission are left entirely to get_tool_schema and get_change_status, so it is adequate but not self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 0% and the nested `params` object is entirely opaque — no field names, types, or per-operation shapes are given. The description only redirects to get_tool_schema, which is a procedural pointer rather than parameter semantics, leaving the agent unable to construct a call without an extra round trip.

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?

Names the exact resource ('Reddit Ads, change operations') and enumerates all eleven supported operations, so an agent knows precisely which mutations live here versus the read-side sibling reddit_ads. The scope statement ('a change to an existing object is a proposal; new objects are created paused') further pins down what kind of operation this is.

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?

Provides real workflow context — proposals need human approval or an auto policy allowing reversible changes, and creations land paused with no spend — but never says when to prefer get_change_status, approve_change, or propose_change over this tool, nor when to use the read-side reddit_ads instead. The only explicit routing is 'Parameters of an operation: get_tool_schema'.

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