Enable, pause, or remove a Google Ads campaign by updating its status. Specify the desired state to control campaign delivery.
Set a campaign's status (enable, pause, or remove).
Args: customer_id: Google Ads customer ID. campaign_id: Campaign ID. status: New status -- 'ENABLED', 'PAUSED', or 'REMOVED'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| customer_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific REMOVED status but does not explain whether removal is permanent, what side effects occur, or any permission requirements.
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 front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by a terse argument list. There is no filler or repetition of schema data.
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 status mutation with annotations covering destructiveness, the description covers purpose and all arguments. It is slightly incomplete only in not clarifying the overlap with remove_campaign or the permanence of REMOVED.
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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description carries the burden. It assigns a meaning to every parameter and gives the exact allowed values for status, compensating for the schema's bare string properties.
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 first sentence names the verb ('Set'), resource ('campaign'), and scope ('status'), and enumerates the three allowed statuses. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling status setters on ad groups and ads.
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 no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. Sibling tools include update_campaign, remove_campaign, set_ad_group_status, and set_ad_status, but the description never contrasts them or states exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.