Pause or enable Google Ads keywords

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

Annotations already supply the key behavior: readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'reversible,' which reinforces the non-destructive, toggling nature of the operation, but it does not disclose side effects or external-state implications. This is consistent with the annotations but only slightly extends them.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: one short sentence with no filler or repetition beyond the title. It loses a point because the only genuinely new information beyond the title is 'reversible.'

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 reversible status toggle, the schema and annotations provide a minimally viable foundation. However, the lack of an output schema, any description of return values, or explanation of how criterion_ids and ad_group_id relate makes the definition incomplete for a fully informed API call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only maps vaguely to the 'status' parameter. It does not explain ad_group_id, criterion_ids, or customer_id, nor their relationships. The enum values for status do appear in the schema, but the other required parameters are left entirely undocumented in the description.

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 clearly identifies the action: pause or enable keywords. The resource is unambiguous from the title, and the action is distinct from sibling tools like google_ads_add_keywords or google_ads_remove_keywords. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives within the description.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no mention of required context such as ad group or customer. The agent must infer the intended usage primarily from the tool name and sibling names.

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