pause_campaign

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses idempotency ('safe to call on already-paused campaigns'), but omits auth requirements, side effects (e.g., whether ad delivery/spend stops), reversibility, and response behavior.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The action is stated first, followed by the key safety note.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and idempotency. It remains sparse on prerequisites and side effects, but the low complexity and lack of required return-value explanation keep this from being a major gap.

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% and the description never mentions campaign_id, its format, or what it identifies. With one required parameter present, the description should compensate but adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'pause' and resource 'Meta campaign'. Implicitly distinguishes from sibling activate_campaign (opposite action) and delete_campaign (destructive), but does not explicitly differentiate from bulk_update_campaign_status or address the odd 'live' vs 'already-paused' phrasing.

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?

Provides one explicit usage note: safe to call on already-paused campaigns. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over activate_campaign or bulk_update_campaign_status, nor any prerequisites.

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