pause_campaign

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

Annotations already flag non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent; the description adds context annotations cannot carry: the write-key requirement, the fact that spending stops only once Apple applies the command (async), and that a jobId is returned for polling. That is real behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, each load-bearing, with the most consequential constraint (PREVIEW ONLY, approval required) front-loaded. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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, the description still explains the return (a jobId to poll via get_job), the auth prerequisite, and the timing of the effect. Nothing needed to invoke or follow up on this destructive, non-idempotent action 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% and the single campaignId parameter is already documented as coming from get_ads_campaigns, so the schema does the work. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline at full coverage.

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 and resource ('pause an Apple Ads campaign'), which cleanly separates it from resume_campaign and from the keyword-scoped pause_keyword sibling. The scope ('campaign', Apple Ads) is 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?

Gives explicit when/when-not conditions: 'PREVIEW ONLY' and 'Apply only with the user's explicit approval' gate invocation, and it names the follow-up tool (get_job) plus the prerequisite (a connected Apple Ads WRITE key). An agent knows exactly what to do before and after calling.

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