resume_campaign

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: spending restarts only once Apple applies the command, i.e. the effect is asynchronous and delayed rather than immediate. It does not address non-idempotency (double-resume) or how to confirm application, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the PREVIEW ONLY qualifier and the action, then the side effect, then the guardrail. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the agent learns the side effect and approval requirement, but not the completion path: whether confirm_action must be called to actually apply the preview, or get_ads_command_status to verify Apple applied it. Those omissions matter for a preview/apply flow with zero output schema.

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% for the single campaignId parameter, so the description must carry it and says only 'campaign,' supplying no format, source, or lookup hint. Baseline is minimal-viable because the lone identifier is obvious from the resource name, but the description adds nothing beyond it.

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 ('resume a paused Apple Ads campaign'), which cleanly separates it from siblings pause_campaign, resume_keyword, and pause_keyword. An agent can pick it without opening any 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 a real precondition: 'Apply only with the user's explicit approval,' which tells the agent when it is safe to invoke. It does not, however, name the follow-up path (the sibling confirm_action) or explain what PREVIEW ONLY means for what the caller must do next, so an alternative route is implied rather than stated.

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