Plan a Meta pause

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'nothing is written' is consistent rather than novel, but the description goes beyond them: read order (account first, then status), local-only validation, a signed plan artifact, and that rollback restores the previous status. It still does not say what the plan contains or how long it stays valid.

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-loaded with the PLAN/no-write qualifier before anything else, so the agent gets the most decision-relevant fact first. The remaining clauses are dense but each carries information (scope, read order, apply path, rollback); a little dense for a single paragraph.

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 covers the return artifact (signed plan) and the downstream apply/rollback lifecycle, which is what an agent needs to act. Only minor gaps remain, such as plan expiry or what the signed plan contains.

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% — level, client_id and entity_ids are each documented in the schema, including the 1-25 id bound and their source tools. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

Specific verb plus resource plus mode: 'PLAN (nothing is written): pause Meta campaigns, ad sets or ads (status PAUSED).' It immediately distinguishes itself from meta_apply and from sibling plan_* pause tools on other platforms (gads_plan_pause_entities, openai_ads_plan_pause) by naming Meta and the plan-only semantics.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward ('apply it with meta_apply after the user agrees') and states the precondition of user agreement, which is real workflow guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over, say, a direct pause path or when NOT to plan (e.g. already-paused entities), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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