google_ads_campaigns_update_status

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is 'lightweight' and writes only the status field, describes the return value (campaign ID and new status), and explains the soft-delete nature of REMOVED and reversibility. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, which would raise the score further.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers usage, return value, and reversibility. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 update tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, usage guidelines, behavioral traits (lightweight, selective write), return value, and reversibility. No obvious gaps remain for effective agent 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?

The schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the customer_id fallback behavior and by explaining the soft-delete nature of REMOVED status. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter implications beyond basic types and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool sets the delivery status of a single campaign to ENABLED, PAUSED, or REMOVED. It distinguishes itself from google_ads_campaigns_update by specifying that the latter is for changing name, bidding, or other settings, providing a clear differentiation.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool ('use this for pause/resume') and mentions an alternative (google_ads_campaigns_update for other changes). It also explains the reversibility of status changes, including the 30-day window for REMOVED, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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