ad_manager_fb_pause_campaign

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond these, such as side effects (campaign stops spending) or reversibility (the existence of a resume tool). It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them.

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?

At two words, it is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits critical information that an agent would need, making the brevity a deficiency rather than an asset. The description does not earn its place by conveying necessary details.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what pausing a campaign entails (e.g., stopping delivery, impact on budget), whether it is reversible, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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 50%: campaignId lacks a description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain what the campaign ID refers to (e.g., Facebook campaign ID). locationId has a description in the schema, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented campaignId or clarify how they work together.

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 'Pause campaign' clearly identifies the action (pause) and resource (campaign), which is specific enough. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ad_manager_fb_pause_ad or ad_manager_fb_pause_adset. The name already includes 'fb' and 'campaign', so the purpose is reasonably clear, but the description adds no distinguishing scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used specifically for pausing campaigns rather than ads or ad sets, nor does it provide any prerequisites or contextual triggers. The agent is left to infer that it applies to campaigns from the name alone.

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