Set status

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description adds non-obvious behavior: there is no hard delete, DELETED is destructive but reversible-in-name-only, and the archive-then-delete sequencing plus three-hour delay are prerequisites an agent cannot infer. This is real value beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the deletion constraints. No filler; every sentence carries operational information an agent needs before invoking a destructive bulk call.

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?

Covers the destructive semantics and preconditions well for a mutation tool with no output schema. What is missing is batch/partial-failure behavior and what a successful multi-entity status change returns, which matters for a bulk destructive operation.

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 only 33% – ids is documented, while status and entity_type rely solely on enums. The description implicitly maps actions to enum values (activate/pause/archive/delete) and lists the entity types, partially compensating, but it never addresses the array semantics of ids or batch-size expectations.

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 set (activate, pause, archive, delete) over a specific resource set (campaigns, ad groups, ads) and emphasizes the bulk “at once” scope. This differentiates it cleanly from the per-entity siblings like reddit_ads_update_campaign and reddit_ads_update_ad_group, which operate on single 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?

Gives substantive operating rules: DELETED is the only delete path, a campaign must be ARCHIVED before DELETED, and a three-hour cooldown applies after the last change. It does not name explicit alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but for a status endpoint with no direct sibling the sequencing guidance is strong context.

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