meta_ads_ad_sets_enable

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the status change, the dependency on the parent campaign, that paused ads underneath will not auto-resume, the return value, and reversibility. This is comprehensive behavioral information beyond what a minimal description would provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: it explains the action, prerequisites, side effects, return value, and reversibility. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is thorough: it covers the action, conditions, impact on child entities, return value, and reversal path. It provides all necessary context for an agent to 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (e.g., ad_set_id as 'Ad set ID to activate' and account_id with format and fallback). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it confirms the action's effect on the ad set. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's action: 'Resumes a paused ad set by setting its status to ACTIVE.' It specifies the resource (ad set) and the operation (enable/resume), distinguishing it from sibling tools like meta_ads_ad_sets_pause and meta_ads_ad_sets_update. The added context about parent campaign and ad status further clarifies its 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 implies when to use the tool (when an ad set is paused and needs resuming) and provides important prerequisite context (parent campaign must be ACTIVE). It also names reversal options (rollback_apply or meta_ads_ad_sets_pause), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other tools like meta_ads_ad_sets_update or mention scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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