enable_entity

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds transparency by explaining that it is a draft/preview that returns a plan_id, requiring a subsequent call to confirm_and_apply to execute. This clarifies that the action is not immediate.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a structured format for entity types and ID formats. A bit more compactness could be achieved, but it is clear without unnecessary text.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core functionality, including entity types and ID formats. However, it could mention error conditions (e.g., if entity is not paused) for full completeness.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains entity_type with allowed values, entity_id with format per type (with examples), and customer_id as optional. This is essential for correct parameter usage.

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 it is for drafting an enable action on paused entities (campaigns, ad groups, ads, keywords) and returns a preview. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pause_entity and remove_entity by specifying the action and workflow.

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 workflow: call to get a preview, then use confirm_and_apply to execute. It also explains entity types and ID formats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if the entity is already enabled or if immediate action is needed).

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