Действие над кампанией

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by mapping each action to its exact status outcome, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention irreversibility of delete or any side effects beyond status change, though destructiveHint covers general caution.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the three possible actions with their corresponding status changes. Zero waste, perfectly concise.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description fully explains the actions and their effects. The only missing element is explicit mention of whether delete is permanent, but given destructiveHint=true, this is adequately covered. Overall, an agent can call this tool correctly with the provided information.

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 coverage is only 50% (ids has a description, action does not). The tool description compensates by explaining the meaning of each action enum value and clarifying that ids refer to campaign IDs. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, effectively covering the gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: changing campaign status by id, with specific actions and resulting statuses (activate→active, stop→blocked, delete→deleted). The resource (campaigns) is explicit, and the name ad_plan_action alongside siblings like ad_group_action and banner_action distinguishes it without ambiguity.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the resource type (campaigns) is clear and distinct from ad groups and banners. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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