Set Campaign Status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important trait: the two-phase confirm_token flow where the call returns a plan first and only executes on a second call. It does not say whether the change is reversible, what the plan contains, whether the operation is idempotent, or what permissions customer_id implies.

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 short sentences, the core action first and the confirm_token contract second; every clause carries information and nothing is padded. The terseness creates ambiguity in places, but that is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.

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 need no explanation, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation the description leaves too much open: the accepted status values, what happens on an invalid token, and whether the pause is reversible. It is adequate to attempt a call but not to call it confidently.

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 compensate for four undocumented parameters. It explains confirm_token's semantics well, but status is a bare string with no enum and the description only hints at values via 'pause or resume' without stating the accepted strings, and customer_id/campaign_id are left entirely undefined.

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?

States a specific pair of verbs (pause/resume) and the resource (campaign), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like set_ad_group_status and set_keyword_status. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the resource rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb pair: use this to pause or resume a campaign rather than to change budget, bid, or status of other entities. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternative tools such as write_status for other object types.

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