ads_clickru_campaign_draft_set_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the change is local-only and never sends or launches the campaign, which is important safety context. However, it does not describe permissions, idempotency, valid transition behavior, failure modes, or what happens after status becomes READY.

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 definition is two short sentences with no wasted wording. The core action is front-loaded, and the safety clarification follows immediately.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important safety property: it does not launch or send anything. It still leaves gaps around draft_id semantics, error/return behavior, and relationship to sibling draft-status tools. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It adds meaning for the status parameter by explaining the DRAFT-to-READY transition context, but it never explains what draft_id represents or how it should be supplied. The result is partial compensation rather than full parameter clarity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') plus resource ('locally stored Click.ru campaign') and names the two allowed states, DRAFT and READY. It also clarifies that this is not a launch action, which distinguishes it from campaign-execution tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling ads_clickru_campaign_drafts_status.

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 usage by saying it changes a locally stored campaign between DRAFT and READY and never sends or launches it. That gives useful context for when this tool applies, but it does not name an alternative tool or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond the non-launching clarification.

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