Google 広告の配信状態を変更

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

The annotations only establish readOnly=false, destructive=false, and openWorld. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: enabling may begin billing/charging, the accepted status is ENABLED not ACTIVE, and ad IDs require a composite 'ad group ID~ad ID' key. These are the exact gotchas an agent needs before mutating delivery state.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the primary action, the billing warning, the ID format caveat, and the deletion alternative are each one tight clause with zero 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?

With no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description still supplies the operationally critical details (billing risk, status value, ID format, delete alternative). Nothing an agent needs to invoke this status-change tool correctly 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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema (including the composite-key note and the customer_id default). The description reinforces the composite-key format for kind=ad but adds no new parameter syntax beyond the schema, so the 3 baseline 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?

States a specific verb (start/stop delivery) plus the three target resources (campaign/ad_group/ad), and explicitly routes deletion to the sibling google_ads_remove. The agent can distinguish this from google_ads_remove and the create_* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditions: use this to ENABLE/PAUSE, use google_ads_remove to delete. Also clarifies the ACTIVE-vs-ENABLED terminology confusion. It does not address when to prefer this over google_ads_mutate, which is a plausible alternative for status changes, so it stops short of full when-not coverage.

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