set_status

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. It reveals the dry-run default behavior and the need for explicit confirmation, which is crucial for safe invocation. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description fills an important gap by explaining the safety mechanism.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that convey purpose, allowed values, the modal mechanism, and the important dry-run/confirm behavior. No filler or redundant information.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools exist, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (modal, dry-run, confirm). It lacks details on return value or error handling, but the key decision-making context for safe use is present. A score of 4 reflects that it is mostly complete but could mention what happens after execution.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It explains the status parameter by mentioning the allowed values ('Active / On Hold') and describes the confirm parameter's effect (dry-run vs execution). However, it does not describe the ad_id parameter at all, leaving its semantics unclear.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set ad status (Active / On Hold)'. It specifies the exact operation (setting status) and the resource (ad). The mention of a modal and the two allowed values differentiates it from sibling tools like update_ad or set_budget, which handle different aspects.

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 behavior of the confirm parameter ('Requires confirm=True to execute; default is dry-run'), which provides usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_ad, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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