set_ad_group_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds the valid statuses and highlights that 'REMOVED' is a possible state, which aligns with the destructive hint. It does not explain what removal means operationally, such as whether it is reversible, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden here.

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 compact and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a clean Args list. Every line adds useful information, and there is no redundant prose or repetition of the schema's structural details.

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 three-parameter mutation tool, the description is largely complete: all required parameters are explained, allowed values are enumerated, and annotations cover destructive and idempotent behavior. There is no mention of return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap. Nothing needed to actually invoke the tool is missing.

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 carry the semantic weight, and it does. Each parameter gets a meaningful one-line explanation, and status explicitly lists the three valid values. It could add ID formatting details, but the identifiers are clearly named in a Google Ads context, making this sufficient.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Set an ad group's status,' then enumerates the allowed status values. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like set_campaign_status and set_ad_status by resource. It does not explicitly differentiate it from the more general update_ad_group, but the core purpose is clear.

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 phrase 'Set an ad group's status' implies this is the dedicated tool for status changes, and the parameter descriptions make the intended input clear. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of update_ad_group or the sibling status-setting tools. With multiple similar sibling tools, explicit routing would improve the definition.

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