set_campaign_stateChange a campaign’s status by activating, pausing, or archiving it. Archive permanently removes the campaign when it is no longer needed.
Explicitly activate, pause, or archive a campaign. Archiving is irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Target state transition | |
| campaign_id | Yes | The campaign ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the important irreversible nature of archiving, which is valuable. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects of activate/pause, idempotency, or what happens on success, so coverage is partial.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core actions are front-loaded, and the critical irreversible warning is placed immediately after, making the most important information easy to process quickly.
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 low complexity of the tool and complete schema, the description is workable, but gaps remain. It lacks explicit usage guidance relative to update_campaign and other sibling tools, and it does not cover behavior beyond the irreversible archive warning, which leaves an agent to infer some operational details.
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 schema already documents both parameters. The description mostly restates the enum values and adds the irreversibility note, but it does not provide additional parameter-level detail such as ID format or behavior per action beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 identifies a specific verb (activate/pause/archive) and a specific resource (campaign), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming the campaign entity and the state-transition actions. The title and description are consistent and 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?
The tool's purpose implies when it should be used, and sibling names like set_ad_state and set_ad_group_state help indicate scope, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of update_campaign or other campaign-related tools. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.