Update Ad Set Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotenceHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that this tool mutates. It does add a useful return-value hint ('Updated ad set details') and clarifies the action is a toggle between ON/OFF. It does not describe potential downstream effects on ads within the ad set, but that is a minor gap given the simple operation.

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 minimal and efficient: one clear core-action sentence followed by a compact Args/Returns structure. Every part earns its place, with the purpose front-loaded and no filler.

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 two-parameter status toggle, the description covers the inputs and gives a basic return expectation. Annotations supply the idempotence and mutation profile. The only missing context is explicit guidance about side effects on child ads or when to use a sibling tool, but the tool is straightforward enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both adSetId and status, including the ON/OFF enum. The description repeats essentially the same parameter information without adding extra detail such as format, prerequisites, or edge-case behavior, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Enable or disable an ad set.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like newsbreak_update_ad_set, which handles other ad set fields, and newsbreak_update_ad_status, which targets a different entity.

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 intended usage is implied by 'Enable or disable an ad set,' which tells an agent this is the tool for toggling ON/OFF status. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as deferring to newsbreak_update_ad_set for non-status changes.

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