Update Campaign Status

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the concrete behavioral effect (toggling status between ON and OFF) and states that updated campaign details are returned, which is useful since no output schema is provided. No contraciction with 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 short and front-loaded with the main behavior, and the return-value note is helpful. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema, but the overall structure remains efficient and easy to scan.

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, schema, and annotations together give enough information to call the tool correctly: required params, accepted values, effect, and return shape. It does not explain campaign ownership prerequisites or edge cases, but these are not central for this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both campaignId and status; the description's Args block essentially restates the schema rather than adding new semantic meaning. The enum on status is captured in both places, so the description provides no additional parameter insight beyond the schema.

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 'Enable or disable a campaign,' which states a clear action and resource, and the title adds the resource (campaign). It is distinguishable from the sibling update_campaign because it specifically toggles campaign status, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or other status tools.

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 action 'Enable or disable a campaign' implies when this tool should be used, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over update_campaign for other campaign edits or over analogous status tools for ad sets and ads. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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