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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the operation is irreversible, an archived campaign cannot be reactivated, and it must be recreated. It stops short of explaining the confirm_id preview/double-submit flow described in the schema, which is a notable behavioral requirement for a destructive write.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by the key differentiator and the irreversibility warning, then the payload hint. No wasted sentences; every clause earns 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 destructive tool with no output schema and 75% param coverage, the description covers the critical safety information (irreversibility, no reactivation). The one gap is that it never mentions the confirm_id preview-then-execute step that the schema implies, leaving the agent to discover the confirmation flow elsewhere.

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 75%, so the schema already documents account_id and confirm_id in detail plus campaign_ids. The description only restates the campaign_ids array shape (no syntax/format detail) and adds nothing about the two-phase confirm_id pattern, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

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+resource ('Archivia (elimina) una o più campagne SP') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ads_update_sp_campaign, stating why that tool cannot do this. An agent can select this tool 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?

It states this is the ONLY way to archive an SP campaign and explains the alternative's limitation (ads_update_sp_campaign only accepts ENABLED|PAUSED because Amazon rejects ARCHIVED on PUT). This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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