google_ads_campaigns_update_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It fully covers behavioral traits: writes only the status field, returns the campaign ID and new status, supports rollback for ENABLED ↔ PAUSED, and explains that REMOVED is a soft delete reversible within 30 days. This gives an agent clear expectations of side effects and reversibility.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: function, scope/return, reversibility, and usage guidance. It is well-structured and free of redundant 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 simplicity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, what it returns, how it can be reversed, and when to use it. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the structured parameter descriptions already handle parameter semantics. The description adds context that only the status field is written, but it does not elaborate on campaign_id or customer_id beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Sets the delivery status of a single campaign to ENABLED, PAUSED, or REMOVED.' It clearly identifies the resource (campaign status) and the allowed actions, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings by contrasting it with google_ads_campaigns_update, which handles other settings.

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 includes direct usage guidance: 'Use this for pause/resume; use google_ads_campaigns_update to change name, bidding, or other settings.' It also mentions the lightweight scope ('writes only the status field') and reversibility considerations, making it easy for an agent to decide when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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