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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing the specific irreversibility ('una campagna archiviata non si riattiva, va ricreata') and the underlying API constraint. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the exclusivity rule, then the critical irreversibility warning. No filler; every sentence carries actionable weight.

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 archive operation with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, that it is irreversible, and why no alternative exists. Remaining details (account_id optionality, confirm_id two-phase flow) live in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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, confirm_id and campaign_ids; profile_id is undocumented in both. The description only echoes the campaign_ids array shape ('[id, ...]'), adding minimal meaning beyond the structured fields.

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+resource ('Archivia (elimina) una o più campagne SP') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ads_update_sp_campaign, explaining that this is the ONLY way to archive. An agent can differentiate it from the update tool without opening either 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 explicit when-to-use guidance by naming the alternative (ads_update_sp_campaign only accepts ENABLED|PAUSED) and the technical reason Amazon rejects ARCHIVED on PUT. This is a textbook 'use this, not that, because' routing statement.

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