ad_manager_li_update_ad_status

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description only repeats the action 'update' without adding detail about side effects, required permissions, or what happens to the ad object. It does not contradict annotations, but it contributes nothing beyond 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is structurally simple, but it is so terse that it sacrifices informativeness. It lacks meaningful content, making it under-specified rather than concise in a productive way.

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 tool with 4 parameters (2 of which are enums), no output schema, and multiple related siblings, this description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the effect of each operationType, which entity types are supported, or any expected response. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without external knowledge.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100%), providing basic meanings like 'Ad identifier', 'Ad object type', and 'Update operation'. The tool description adds no extra nuance about parameter relationships or how they interact (e.g., that 'operationType' values map to specific status changes). Given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update ad status' is extremely vague. It does not specify that this operates on LinkedIn ad objects, nor does it clarify that it can target ad groups, campaigns, or ads (as indicated by the 'type' parameter). It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like ad_manager_fb_pause_ad or ad_manager_google_publish_ad, which also update statuses.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternative ad management tools (e.g., for LinkedIn specifically, or for pausing vs. resuming vs. archiving). The name hints at LinkedIn, but the description itself offers no direction.

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