Ads.Campaign.Set Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the guarded validate_only preview and confirm-token flow, which signals a safety mechanism, but it omits permissions, reversibility, status value constraints, and failure behavior for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentence with the core action and guard behavior front-loaded. There is no wasted text.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the input side is highly underspecified: zero schema descriptions and no annotations mean the agent lacks parameter meanings, allowed status values, and guard-token details. The description adds useful guard context but is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the four parameters. It only hints at 'confirm token' and pause/enable status, leaving customer_id, campaign_id, status values, and confirm token format undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource: pausing or enabling a campaign. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as ads.budget.update or dv360.line_item.set_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies this is the tool for changing campaign status and notes a guarded preview-and-confirm workflow, but it does not say when to use it instead of related mutation tools or what prerequisites must be met. Usage is inferable but not fully guided.

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