ad_manager_fb_resume_ad

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so it is a non-destructive mutation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain side effects, like whether resuming an ad affects delivery immediately or if any permissions are required. The minimal annotation coverage leaves the description responsible for transparency, which it fails to provide.

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 two words and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It does convey the core action without fluff, earning a middle score, but the lack of structure (e.g., no sentence context) is not ideal.

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?

With no output schema and a mutation action, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention what resuming an ad involves, what happens to the ad's status, or how the operation is confirmed. An agent would have no idea about expected outcomes or prerequisites, making this inadequate for a 2-parameter tool.

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?

The schema has 50% coverage with only locationId having a description. The description 'Resume ad' adds nothing about adId or locationId. Given low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving adId without any semantic context.

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 'Resume ad' clearly states a verb (resume) and a resource (ad), which is unambiguous about the action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ad_manager_fb_resume_adset or ad_manager_fb_resume_campaign, relying on the tool name for that distinction. That meets the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' level.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify that the ad must be in a paused state, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The description provides no usage direction at all.

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