ads_set_ad_group_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dry-run behavior via the confirm flag and the three possible statuses, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects of 'remove' (e.g., whether it is reversible, whether it deletes permanently), nor does it mention permission requirements or rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context but not rich detail.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the dry-run note is important. It could be slightly more structured, but it is 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the essential parameters and the confirm dry-run behavior. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings, and it does not explain the implications of 'remove' or any prerequisites. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain all four parameters: customer_id, ad_group_id, status, and confirm, including the confirm dry-run semantics. However, it does not add detail beyond the schema's names and defaults, such as the format of customer_id (10-digit) is given, but ad_group_id format is not. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 states a clear verb ('Enable, pause, or remove') and a specific resource ('ad group'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ads_set_campaign_status and ads_set_ad_status. It could be slightly more explicit about the 'remove' semantics (removed vs deleted), but the core purpose is 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 implies usage by listing the required arguments and the confirm flag, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ads_set_ad_status or ads_set_campaign_status. The dry-run behavior is mentioned, which gives some context, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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