pause_entity

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals that the tool returns a PREVIEW, not a final action, and requires a separate call to confirm_and_apply to execute. It also specifies the entity_id format per type, which is crucial for correct usage. This adds significant behavioral transparency.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded. It starts with the core action, then explains parameters with examples, and ends with the execution step. Every sentence is valuable and efficiently communicates the needed information.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, clear entity relationships, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to specify entities, and the follow-up required. It could mention error cases or constraints, but for the scope, it is adequately complete.

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 compensates by explaining entity_type and entity_id thoroughly, including format examples for each type. The customer_id parameter is not explained, but it is optional with a default. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the 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 it drafts pausing a specific entity (campaign, ad group, ad, or keyword) and returns a preview. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing from sibling tools like enable_entity or remove_entity. The format for entity_id per type is given, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the two-step process: draft then call confirm_and_apply. It implicitly tells when to use this tool (to pause entities) and provides the follow-up action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the sibling list, which is provided contextually.

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