Enable or pause campaign

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true, so the behavioral safety profile is covered. The description itself adds no extra behavioral context beyond the status assignment, such as effects on serving or reversibility, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and includes the only essential operational detail: the allowed statuses.

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?

For a simple three-parameter status setter, the description combined with the schema and annotations is largely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. A bit more detail about return behavior or side effects would be helpful, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is only 33%: only customer_id has meaningful schema documentation. The description repeats the status enum values already present in the schema but does not explain campaign_id or clarify when customer_id is needed, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and names the exact resource ('a campaign') plus the two valid target states ('ENABLED or PAUSED'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_ad_group_status and set_ad_status by focusing on campaign-level status changes.

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 context: this tool is for campaign status changes, so an agent can infer it is the right choice for campaigns and not for ad groups or ads. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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