Set Campaign Status

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already tells the agent this tool can cause irreversible change, so the bar is lower. The description reinforces this with 'removes' but adds no supplementary context such as permission requirements, reversibility of pause/enable, or rate limits. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 six-word sentence with no filler, and the operation verb leads. Every word earns its place; nothing is buried or repeated.

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 full parameter coverage means the return value and inputs are handled elsewhere, so the description need not restate them. The main remaining gap is the absence of any permission or confirmation guidance for a destructive mutation, though the destructiveHint annotation and the schema's permanence warning partially compensate.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the critical 'REMOVED is permanent — confirm with the user' note and the validate_only dry-run flag. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb set (pauses, enables, removes) against a specific resource (campaign), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_ad_status and set_keyword_status by resource, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. required account permissions), and no routing to alternatives such as create_campaign or update_campaign_budget. The only usage constraint — that REMOVED is permanent and needs user confirmation — lives in the schema, not the description.

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