ads_set_campaign_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does a good job: it reveals the dry-run guard ('confirm must be true to apply'), the allowed status transitions including REMOVED, and the customer_id format. However, it stops short of explicitly warning that REMOVED is likely destructive/irreversible or noting any permission requirements.

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 tight, front-loaded action sentence followed by a compact Args block. Every line adds information, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 status-mutation tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the dry-run safety mechanism, and an output schema exists so return details need not be specified. It lacks usage-differentiation guidance and an explicit note about the destructive nature of 'REMOVED', leaving a small but meaningful 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 coverage is 0% and the schema has no enum values, so the description fully compensates: it explains all four parameters, including the 10-digit customer_id requirement, status values (ENABLED/PAUSED/REMOVED), and the semantic meaning of confirm as a dry-run switch. This is exactly what an agent needs beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Enable, pause, or remove a campaign.' The resource is explicit in both the name and description, making it easy to distinguish from ads_set_ad_group_status and ads_set_ad_status. The phrase 'Core status-monitoring action' is slightly odd for a mutating action, but the main 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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tools for ad group status or ad status, nor any conditions that would make campaign-level control preferable. The 'Core' label implies centrality but does not explain selection criteria.

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