google_ads_batch_status_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It confirms the tool mutates statuses but does not mention permissions, immediacy of changes, rate limits, or potential side effects. The return value is only 'Batch operation result', lacking detail.

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 well-organized into sections (Args, Status Update Schema, Valid Statuses, Returns, Example) and is front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the example is useful.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (indicated in context signals), the description adequately covers input parameters, format, and valid values. It lacks error handling or edge case details, but is sufficient for a batch operation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing customer_id format, entity_type options, and the JSON structure for status_updates_json with two variants and valid statuses per entity. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change status for multiple entities (campaigns, ad groups, keywords, ads).' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like google_ads_batch_enable_campaigns or google_ads_batch_pause_campaigns by explicitly listing supported entity types.

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 valid statuses per entity type and shows JSON schemas for updates. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over more specialized siblings (e.g., google_ads_batch_enable_campaigns for campaign-only enablement), leaving the agent to infer.

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