pause_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose verification status (ad_group branch live-verified, others not) and mentions a state transition ('Paused→Active→Paused'), which adds transparency. However, it does not clarify whether the tool actually pauses or just drafts, nor describe side effects, permissions, or irreversibility—significant gaps for a mutation operation.

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 fairly concise at two paragraphs, but the verification note is cryptically worded ('on a z. ad group' appears to be a typo) and the state transition line is confusing. The essential info is front-loaded, but the unclear phrasing reduces readability and wastes space.

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?

The description is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The phrase 'Draft a pause' leaves it ambiguous whether the operation is applied immediately or staged, which is a core behavioral detail. It does not mention return values, synchronous vs asynchronous behavior, or what happens to child entities. The verification status is helpful but does not fill these gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the allowed values for entity_type and the specific parent_id dependencies (keyword/ad need ad group id, ad_group needs campaign id), which directly addresses two of the three parameters. entity_id is left as obvious (the entity's id), but the provided parameter details are valuable and clear.

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 ('pause') and lists the entity types it applies to (campaign, ad_group, keyword, ad), clearly identifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like enable_entity and remove_entity by the verb, though the phrase 'Draft a pause' introduces ambiguity about whether it actually executes the pause or creates a draft.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as enable_entity or remove_entity. It only mentions parameter preconditions (parent_id requirements) which are about argument usage, not tool selection. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context is provided.

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