direct_suspend_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly labels the operation as 'WRITE', specifies the state change 'State→SUSPENDED', and discloses the permission requirement 'allow_write=true' and the effect of stopping spend. It does not mention reversibility or dry_run behavior, but it covers key behavioral aspects well.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the operation type ('WRITE') and action ('suspend campaigns'), then adds essential requirements and effects. Every phrase earns its place with no waste.

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 write operation with no output schema, the description effectively covers purpose, prerequisites, and outcome. It does not describe the return value or edge cases (e.g., what happens if both dry_run and allow_write are true), but given the moderate complexity and schema detail, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema has 75% coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain every parameter, but it adds value by clarifying that 'project or campaign_ids' are required (implicitly), which is not evident from the schema's lack of required fields. It does not further explain dry_run or allow_write beyond the schema, but the addition of the 'or' constraint improves understanding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'suspend campaigns' with an explicit state transition '(State→SUSPENDED)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like direct_resume_campaigns or direct_archive_campaigns, and the effect 'Stops spend' reinforces the purpose.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires allow_write=true + project or campaign_ids', and notes the consequence 'Stops spend.' However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., suspend vs archive) or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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