adtech_set_campaign_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It correctly identifies the operation as a write ('写') and requires confirmation ('需 confirm'), hinting at a dry-run/execute flow. It does not detail side effects beyond status change, but for this simple operation it is sufficiently transparent.

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 and to the point, containing only the essential information. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simple status-change tool with no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: the action, the resource, the write nature, and the confirmation requirement. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds meaningful value by explaining the status values ('active=恢复投放', 'paused=停投') and reiterating the confirm behavior. This goes beyond a simple restatement of the 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 (pause/resume) and the resource (campaign), and explicitly distinguishes it from read-only listing tools by noting it is a write operation. This makes its purpose 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 explains the core action and the requirement for confirmation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like adtech_adjust_bid or adtech_launch_campaign. It gives context but no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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