zuckerbot_resume_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'can spend money', what dry_run returns, what execution requires, that it does not change budgets or targeting, that a changed preview invalidates approval, and that retries and unknown outcomes require live status inspection. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

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 dense but not bloated; every sentence carries operational weight. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and safety warning, then proceeds through dry-run, execution, ordering, and retry behavior. The only minor issue is that a wall of text could be more scannable, but the complexity justifies the length.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and several sibling tools, this description is remarkably complete. It covers safety, approval flow, dry-run outputs, activation ordering, idempotency, failure handling, and what the tool does not do. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 75%, the description adds critical semantics: confirm_spend means explicit user approval of previewed spend controls, preview_hash must come from a fresh dry-run for the exact object, idempotency_key must be reused for retries, and entity ordering matters. It also explains the dry_run default's return contents, which the schema does not.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Activate ONE existing PAUSED Meta campaign, ad set or ad'. It also distinguishes this tool from draft/intelligence campaign workflows and even names the complementary pause tool at the end, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is explicitly conditioned: dry_run defaults to true for review, execution requires dry_run=false, confirm_spend=true, preview_hash, and idempotency_key; spec-built campaigns must be activated bottom-up; no cascade is stated. The description also says managed drafts 'retain their separate launch workflow' and points to zuckerbot_pause_campaign for stopping delivery, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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