google_ads_update_campaign_status_v2

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

The description only states 'Update campaign status' implying mutation, but fails to disclose side effects, permission requirements, or immediacy of changes. No annotations exist to compensate, leaving the agent unaware of behavioral traits.

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 very concise, using a docstring-like format with clear sections. The purpose is front-loaded. Minor redundancy from the 'Args' and 'Returns' lines, but overall efficient.

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 output schema exists, return details are not needed. However, the description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., campaign must be active), the effect of REMOVED status, and any irreversible actions. With many siblings, more completeness would aid selection.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter: customer_id (no hyphens), campaign_id, and allowed status values. However, it omits format details like case sensitivity for status.

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 'Update campaign status (enable, pause, or remove)', specifying the verb, resource, and allowed statuses. This differentiates from sibling tools like bulk_status_change or update_campaign that handle broader updates.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for campaign updates and status changes, the description lacks context for appropriate selection.

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