activate_ad_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the effect ('resume serving') and a key dependency (parent objects must be active), which is meaningful context. However, it does not mention idempotency when already active, error conditions, scope/auth requirements, or how success is reported.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers the critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does and the key precondition for it to have effect. Minor gaps remain regarding response shape and behavior on already-active accounts, but nothing an agent needs for correct invocation is missing.

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% since the only parameter, ad_account_id, is already documented as 'Optional ad account ID override' in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Activate the ad account (resume serving)'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools at other hierarchy levels like activate_campaign, activate_ad_group, and activate_ad, as well as its inverse pause_ad_account.

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 condition 'All parent campaigns/ad groups/ads must also be active to serve' gives clear context for when this tool is effective, implicitly signaling that the agent may need to activate lower-level objects via sibling tools first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the prerequisite guidance is actionable.

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