google_ads_set_status

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a useful behavioral detail about entity_id composition for nested entities, but omits that a 'confirm' parameter exists and likely gates the mutation — a significant behavioral fact for a destructive operation.

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?

Two compact sentences, purpose first, entity format second — no wasted words. The second line could be formatted more cleanly, but nothing is redundant.

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, open-world mutation with 6 params at 0% schema coverage and an undocumented confirm gate, the description is thin. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but input behavior is largely unexplained.

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% and only 6 params, so the description must carry the load. It explains entity_id format well (including the composite '~' syntax), but says nothing about customer_id, login_customer_id, level, status values, or the confirm flag.

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 names a specific verb pair (pause/enable) and enumerates the exact resource types it acts on (campaign, ad group, ad, keyword). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like meta_set_status, but the Google Ads scope is clear from the tool name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and crucially no explanation of when the 'confirm' flag must be set. The agent is left to infer everything about invocation context.

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