Set Ad Status

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already tells the agent this can destroy data, and the schema description carries the key behavioral warning (REMOVED is permanent). The description itself adds nothing beyond restating that it removes an ad — no idempotency, permission requirements, or validate_only behavior context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource come first and the three operations complete the picture. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema fully documents all five parameters including the risky REMOVED option, so the description need not repeat them. It is adequate for a mutation tool, though a sentence on validate_only or confirmation workflow would have closed the remaining gap.

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 100%, including the critical REMOVED permanence note and validate_only semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the operations but supplies no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific resource (an ad) and enumerates the three operations it performs (pause, enable, remove), so an agent can distinguish it from set_campaign_status and set_keyword_status by resource. It is clear, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only routing signal is the resource name. An agent must infer that this tool applies only to ads and not ad groups or campaigns.

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