ads_set_ad_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that confirm must be true to apply (otherwise a dry-run is performed) and enumerates the three allowed statuses, including REMOVED, which signals modify/remove behavior. It does not cover reversibility or permissions, but the dry-run/confirm safety gate is a significant and well-disclosed trait.

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 one-sentence summary followed by a tight five-item argument list with no filler or repetition. The primary action is front-loaded and every line contributes new, relevant 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 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and the key behavioral caveat (confirm vs dry-run). It does not specify optionality or prerequisites, and it doesn't explain return values in the text, but the presence of an output schema covers the return format. Overall it is sufficient for a mutation tool with a safety gate.

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%, and the description compensates by documenting every parameter: customer_id as a 10-digit account id, ad_group_id as the group the ad belongs to, ad_id, status with its allowed values, and confirm with the dry-run/apply semantics. This adds meaning well beyond the bare names and defaults in the schema, especially for status and confirm.

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 opening line 'Enable, pause, or remove a specific ad' states a concrete action and resource, and 'specific ad' clearly distinguishes this from sibling status tools like ads_set_campaign_status and ads_set_ad_group_status. The verb phrase and scope leave no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 states what the tool does to an ad but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over the many sibling status tools. The only context is the scope 'specific ad', which implies it is not for campaign- or ad-group-level status changes, but no alternatives or exclusions are named. Thus usage is implied rather than clearly stated.

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