pause_campaign

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

The annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutation operation. The description adds value by specifying the cross-platform capability, which isn't covered by annotations, but it doesn't detail behavioral aspects like whether the pause is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens to active ads. With annotations covering the destructive nature, the description provides some useful context beyond them.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action, and the second adds valuable scope information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and context efficiently.

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 destructive tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it clarifies the action, resource, and cross-platform scope. However, it lacks details on return values or error conditions, which would be helpful given the mutation nature, though not strictly required since output schema is absent.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (campaign_id and platform, including an enum for platform). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples for campaign_id or platform selection guidance, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Pause') and resource ('campaign by ID'), with the additional scope clarification 'Works across all connected platforms' that distinguishes it from platform-specific campaign creation tools in the sibling list like create_linkedin_campaign or create_meta_campaign.

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 implies usage context through 'Works across all connected platforms,' suggesting this is a multi-platform tool, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like update_campaign_budget or list_campaigns, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites for pausing campaigns.

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