wafle_ads_campaign_pause

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds concrete behavior: idempotent pausing returns ok=true, and it clarifies the auth model ('Uses the tenant's connected Meta access token; the LLM does not need to pass credentials'). It does not over-explain what annotations already cover, and adds useful specifics without contradiction.

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: the first states the action and idempotency, the second explains the auth model, and the third gives usage context and an alternative. Every sentence provides distinct, non-redundant value and is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with good annotations, the description is complete: it covers what it does, the idempotent result, credential handling, when to use it, and when to prefer a sibling. No output schema exists, but the ok=true note gives sufficient response context.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (slug, campaign_id) have clear descriptions with examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but also doesn't need to; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Pause a Meta Ads campaign by id.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like wafle_ads_campaign_resume (resume) and wafle_ads_bulk_pause (multi-campaign), and the focus on a single campaign by id is explicit.

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?

Usage is explicitly guided: 'Use when ROAS is below threshold or as the apply step of a pause-recommendation.' It also names an alternative for multi-campaign cases: 'prefer `wafle_ads_bulk_pause` to avoid round-trip cost,' and the idempotency note clarifies when repeated calls are safe.

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