set_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a dry-run default unless confirm=true, which is critical safety-relevant behavior, and states that REMOVED is not supported. This gives the agent actionable knowledge about side effects and limitations.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds meaningful guidance: allowed values/resource types, resource_name requirement, and safety/constraint behavior.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and sparse schema, the description covers the most important operational details: valid statuses, supported resource types, resource_name format, dry-run behavior, and the unsupported REMOVED state. It does not describe customer_id, but that parameter is self-explanatory. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains resource_name format with an example, enumerates valid status values, and explains the confirm parameter's dry-run semantics. customer_id is not elaborated, but it is self-evident from the name and example.

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'), exact allowed values ('ENABLED or PAUSED'), and a clear list of target resources (campaign, ad group, ad, keyword). It also distinguishes itself from other mutation tools by focusing on status transitions and explicitly excluding REMOVED.

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?

Explains the prerequisite that resource_name must be the full resource name from the read MCP, gives an example, and clarifies that REMOVED is intentionally not supported, implying the alternative is remove_entity. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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