Pause Campaign (gated mutation)

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

The description adds the behavioral trait that this operation is 'gated', meaning it requires explicit user intent (as also seen in the schema with explicit_user_intent parameter). Annotations already indicate it's mutable and destructive. The description does not, however, explain the specific effects of pausing a campaign (e.g., ads stop serving, spend stops). For a mutation with destructiveHint true, more context on what gets affected would be beneficial. Nevertheless, it provides one additional behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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 very short (two sentences) and immediately conveys the core action and the gating requirement. However, it could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., listing required parameters or usage context). It is concise but slightly under-specified.

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 description is brief and does not cover contextual details such as prerequisites (e.g., campaign must be active to pause), effects (campaign status changes, immediate impact on spend), or confirmation steps. While annotations and output schema provide some safety net, the description lacks the context needed for an agent to fully understand the implications of invoking this tool for the first time.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description has a high burden to clarify parameter semantics. It adds that the campaign is paused 'by id', which maps to campaign_id, but does not elaborate on the other three parameters (customer_id has schema description but not in tool description, response_format and explicit_user_intent lack any description). The description falls short in compensating for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Pause' and the resource 'entire campaign', distinguishing it from sibling tools like google_ads_pause_keyword. The mention of 'by id' specifies the input mechanism, providing a specific and distinct purpose.

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 provide any usage guidelines. It does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like google_ads_resume_campaign or google_ads_pause_keyword. The word 'GATED' hints at a requirement for explicit user intent, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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