Set Keyword Status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing about behavior: no required permissions, no mention of the confirm_token parameter that hints at a confirmation step, no statement about reversibility, and no indication of valid status values despite 'status' being a free-form string. Only the mutation intent and batch atomicity are implied.

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 tight sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but every word earns its place structurally.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage on five parameters, and an undocumented confirmation token, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input and safety picture remain incomplete.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It conveys that criterion_ids are keywords from a single ad group and that status means pause/resume, but says nothing about customer_id, ad_group_id format, or the role and expected values of confirm_token.

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 states a specific verb pair (pause/resume) and resource (keywords of one ad group), plus the batch scope ('several ... in one operation'). That distinguishes it from set_ad_group_status and set_campaign_status by resource level, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Batch phrasing implies this is preferred over repeated single-keyword calls, and the 'same ad group' constraint hints at when it does not apply. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like write_status or set_ad_group_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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