Draft: update campaign status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates this is a draft operation that returns a draftId and requires a subsequent confirm_write call to take effect. This is a critical non-obvious behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites like campaign existence.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the critical draft/confirm_write detail without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the draft mechanism, and the required next step. It lacks some details like error handling or the meaning of 'removed', but it is sufficient for basic usage and clearly links to the confirm_write sibling.

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 describes campaignId but leaves status without description. The description compensates by explaining the status values as 'enabling, pausing, or removing', adding meaning to the enum. It also implies campaignId refers to an existing campaign. This goes beyond the 50% schema coverage, providing useful 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 clearly states the verb and resource: enabling, pausing, or removing an existing campaign. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_ad_group_status and update_keyword_status by specifying 'campaign'. The draft behavior is also highlighted, making the intent unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to change a campaign's status, and it explicitly instructs to call confirm_write to apply the change. It implies this is a two-phase commit, but does not give explicit exclusions or compare with alternatives beyond confirming the follow-up step.

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