wafle_ads_campaign_resume

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

The description goes beyond the idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations by specifying the actual state change (status to ACTIVE), confirming idempotency for already-active campaigns, and warning about the Learning Phase signal loss for long-paused campaigns. This provides valuable behavioral context.

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 sentences plus a caveat note, all directly informative. The main action is front-loaded, and the note about Learning Phase is a valuable addition without padding.

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 state-change tool with idempotency and destructive hints already provided, the description covers the essential behavior and adds a domain-specific caveat. It doesn't describe return values, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both required parameters (slug and campaign_id) with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond referring to 'by id', so the baseline score of 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 explicitly states the action ('Resume a paused Meta Ads campaign by id') and the outcome ('Sets status to ACTIVE'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like wafle_ads_campaign_pause or wafle_ads_bulk_pause.

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?

It clearly describes the scenario when this tool is appropriate (resuming a paused campaign) and notes a behavioral consideration for campaigns paused 14+ days, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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