meta_set_status

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it doesn't explain that pausing halts delivery/spend, whether the change is reversible, or what the undocumented 'confirm' flag does — a critical omission for a destructive mutation.

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?

One short sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it comes at the cost of missing details rather than being over-long.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, for a destructive, open-world mutation tool with an unexplained 'confirm' parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description omits the confirmation semantics, reversibility, and permission requirements an agent needs before invoking it.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, but it only implicitly maps object_id ('by id') and status. The 'confirm' boolean — which likely gates execution — is never mentioned, leaving a required safety parameter fully opaque.

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/activate) and a concrete resource (Meta campaign, ad set, or ad) addressed by id. It is distinguishable from siblings such as google_ads_set_status by platform and by resource scope, though it doesn't clarify how it relates to the more general meta_update_entity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus meta_update_entity or meta_set_budget, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name and the single sentence.

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