Pause Auto Apply Recommendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the blast radius ('every active subscription'), which is valuable for a mutation, but it says nothing about permissions required, reversibility, idempotency, or what the nullable confirm_token implies about a confirmation step.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 explained, but for a two-parameter mutation with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits critical details: what customer_id identifies, whether confirm_token is required for the action to take effect, and whether the change can be undone.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Neither customer_id nor confirm_token is mentioned; 'every active subscription' only loosely hints that the operation is customer-scoped, and the purpose of confirm_token is entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb (turn off) and resource (auto-applied recommendations), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools that all deal with campaign/ad group/keyword status and budgets. It does not name or contrast with any sibling explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the counterpart action (re-enabling). The parenthetical scope note is descriptive, not usage guidance.

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