campaign_pause_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a preview (non-committal) operation, but it does not explain what a preview returns, how long it remains valid, or that it must be applied through operations_apply, which is the key behavioral fact for this whole tool family.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of richer content.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a preview-style mutation tool in a preview/apply pipeline the description should mention the operations_apply handoff and any validation or side-effect notes. Neither is present.

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 profile, adAccountId and campaignId are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or constraints, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb (pausing) and resource (one campaign), and the word 'Preview' signals it differs from an actual pause. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like campaign_resume_preview or ad_group_pause_preview, but the resource scope 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus campaign_resume_preview, campaign_delete_preview, or campaign_update_preview, nor any mention of the follow-up step (operations_apply) that makes a preview actionable. An agent must infer the workflow entirely from the tool name.

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