pause_ad

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the immediate effect ('stop spending immediately'), the confirmation requirement, and the conditional behavior based on the confirm parameter. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does, the second provides essential safety guidance, and the third clarifies the alternative behavior. No wasted words.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, critical usage constraints, and parameter semantics. It could mention authentication requirements or error cases, but the output schema likely handles response formatting.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: ad_id is implied as the identifier for 'this specific ad,' and confirm is thoroughly documented with its boolean logic, default behavior (implied by the guidance), and the different outcomes based on its value.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Pause a live Meta ad') and resource ('ad'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'resume_ad' (which does the opposite) and analysis tools. It goes beyond just restating the name by specifying it's for live ads that will stop spending immediately.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Only call with confirm=True after the user has explicitly confirmed they want to pause this specific ad.' It also distinguishes when not to use it (when confirm is False) and specifies the alternative behavior in that case (return confirmation message).

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