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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two meaningful behavioral traits: processing stops and the campaign is hidden from default views. However, it omits whether archiving is reversible, whether campaigns can be restored, and any permission requirements, which are relevant for a state-changing tool.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the two key consequences are stated compactly, with every word earning its place.

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 single-parameter tool, the immediate state change is covered, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should also clarify reversibility and how archiving relates to pause_campaign and delete_campaign. Core details are present, but decision context is incomplete.

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% and the description does not mention the id parameter or clarify that it identifies the campaign to archive. The parameter is simple and inferable from context, so the ambiguity is low, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 ('Archive') and resource ('a campaign') and states concrete resulting behavior: stops processing and is hidden from default views. This clearly differentiates it from pause_campaign and delete_campaign.

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?

The description implies when archive is appropriate by describing its effect, but it does not explicitly compare with pause_campaign or delete_campaign, nor does it mention reversibility or prerequisites. Usage context is present but not directly stated.

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