Set Keyword Status

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals this is a mutating, potentially destructive call, so the bar is lower. The description's warning that REMOVED is permanent adds context, but that same warning is already present verbatim in the status parameter's schema description, so the incremental value is small; it says nothing about permissions or reversibility of ENABLED/PAUSED.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler and the core action front-loaded. The prerequisite lookup cue follows the action statement rather than burying it.

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, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive hint plus the permanence note cover the safety profile. What remains thin is the distinction between ENABLED and PAUSED effects on an existing REMOVED keyword, which is left to the agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description does contribute one real thing the schema does not: the origin of criterion_id, pointing the agent to get_keyword_performance and the ad_group_criterion.criterion_id field. That materially helps fill the most obscure required parameter.

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) and the exact resource (a keyword), which cleanly separates it from set_ad_status and set_campaign_status in the sibling list. An agent can pick the right status-mutation tool without reading any schema.

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 second sentence gives concrete workflow guidance: find criterion ids via get_keyword_performance before calling, and it names the exact field (ad_group_criterion.criterion_id). It does not state exclusions or alternatives for the status change itself, but the sequencing advice is genuinely actionable.

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