roasr_campaign_set_state

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states this CHANGES the live ad account (destructive behavior), explains permission requirements, enumerates possible return states (applied, verifying/unknown, partial, failed, conflict, rejected), and specifies retry behavior with the same idempotencyKey. This is exemplary disclosure beyond structured fields.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, permission prerequisite, return semantics, and retry guidance. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, followed by caveats and error handling.

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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return command states and what to do for unconfirmed or failed states. It covers prerequisites, error cases, and retry behavior, making it complete for an action that modifies a live account.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that retrying with the same idempotencyKey returns the original command instead of double-changing the campaign, which is a behavioral nuance not fully captured by the schema's 'reuse the same value.' This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Pause or resume one advertising campaign (Yandex Direct).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform metrics, search, or read-only operations. The scope is limited to a single campaign, which adds precision.

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 provides clear context for when the tool works: it requires the account owner to grant API key permission and list the campaign as allowed, otherwise a permission error explains what to enable. It also directs the user to poll roasr_command_get for unconfirmed states and explains the retry pattern with idempotencyKey. It does not explicitly name alternatives for the same operation, but the usage conditions are well defined.

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