Plan: pause Google Ads entities

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

Despite readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations already covering the safety profile, the description adds substantial context: each entity is read first (status kept for rollback), it is dry-run via validateOnly, the pause stops spending, and rollback re-enables only under a condition. This is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and packs the key mechanics (read-first, dry-run, ad-id format, follow-up, rollback caveat) into a tight block. Dense but every clause earns its place; minor crowding from the rollback/spend sentences keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what the plan returns (diff, risks, confirmation_token, confirm) and the required user-facing flow, plus the ad-id syntax. An agent has everything needed to call it and hand the result back.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the '<ad_group_id>~<ad_id>' ad-id format. The description restates the same ad-id format rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 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+resource: 'Plan pausing Google Ads campaigns, ad groups or ads (status PAUSED, nothing else).' The explicit scope 'nothing else' and the entity list distinguish it from siblings like gads_plan_budget_change and gads_plan_add_negatives without needing to open 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?

Gives a clear workflow: show the returned plan to the user, then call gads_apply, and notes that rollback_plan re-enables only if allow_activate is set. It names the follow-up tools but stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement or contrast against other plan_* tools.

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