update_ad_group_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It critically discloses the dry-run default behavior ('Dry run unless confirm=True'), which is a major safety-related trait. It also restricts acceptable inputs to three status values. It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but the dry-run disclosure is significant and goes beyond a generic update statement.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the critical behavioral note. Every word adds value with no redundancy or unrelated detail.

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 status-update tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, which parameters matter most, and the default dry-run behavior. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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. It does so by enumerating the possible values for 'status' and explaining the effect of 'confirm' (dry run unless true). It does not elaborate on 'customer_id' and 'ad_group_id', but those are self-explanatory from their names. This adds meaningful semantics to the most complex parameters.

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: 'Set an ad group's status' and enumerates the specific allowed values ('ENABLED', 'PAUSED', 'REMOVED'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_campaign_status or update_keyword_status, which act on different entities.

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 gives clear context by specifying the target resource (ad group) and the action (set status). It also provides an explicit usage instruction: 'Dry run unless confirm=True', which tells the agent that a confirm flag is required to execute changes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives.

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