Draft enabling an entity

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

The description is transparent about side effects: it only drafts and returns a preview, not applying the change until confirm_and_apply is called. This is critical behavioral information that goes beyond the annotations and prevents the agent from assuming the entity is enabled immediately.

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 concise and well-organized, using bullet points and examples effectively. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant wording.

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?

The description covers the main action, required parameters, and the follow-up step to apply the draft. It does not mention customer_id, but the output schema is present and the return behavior (preview with plan_id) is implied clearly.

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?

entity_type and entity_id are well documented, including acceptable values and ID formats for each entity type. customer_id is present in the schema but not explained in the description, which is a minor gap since it is optional with a default.

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: drafting the enabling of a paused campaign, ad group, ad, or keyword. It also distinguishes this from related tools like pause_entity and remove_entity by emphasizing the 'draft' and 'preview' nature.

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 clear guidance that this returns a preview and that confirm_and_apply must be called to execute. It does not explicitly contrast with pause_entity or remove_entity, but the draft/preview wording makes the intended usage clear.

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