resume_ad

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's dual-mode behavior (resuming vs. returning a confirmation message) and the confirmation requirement, which are critical for safe operation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like budget implications or rate limits.

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 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 specifies the confirmation requirement, and the third defines 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 the tool's operational nature (resuming ads), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage rules, and parameter behavior. However, for a mutation tool, it could benefit from mentioning permissions or irreversible effects.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'confirm' parameter's purpose and the conditional behavior based on its value. While it doesn't explicitly mention 'ad_id', the context implies it identifies the ad to resume. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('Resume') and resource ('a paused Meta ad'), and specifies the outcome ('The ad will start spending again'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pause_ad' by being the opposite action, and from analysis tools by being an operational command.

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 instructions: 'Only call with confirm=True after the user has explicitly confirmed they want to resume this specific ad. If confirm is False, return the confirmation message.' This clearly defines when to use (with user confirmation) and the alternative behavior (returning a message without confirmation).

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