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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral context: synchronous execution, task support forbidden, mutation modes (validate_only, preview_only, execute), partial failure policy, idempotency key derivation, and seat requirements on writes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 lengthy and includes a large amount of generic boilerplate about response formatting (e.g., 'Use assistantSummary first', 'Never display raw JSON') that is unrelated to the tool's core function. Although it starts with 'archive creative', the extra sentences dilute the message and could be trimmed significantly.

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 provides useful behavioral context (mutation modes, partial failure, idempotency, seat requirements) and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it does not explain which of the 12 parameters are required, what 'archive' entails, or whether the operation is reversible. This leaves gaps for a destructive tool with many parameters.

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?

With no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description must compensate, but it only touches on idempotencyKey and seatId/seatName. Core parameters like accountId, creativeId, flightId, and others remain unexplained. Partial value is added for two parameters, but the majority are undocumented.

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 opens with 'archive creative', a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling archive tools like archive_advertiser and archive_campaign. The subsequent classification 'writes to Studio, destructive' reinforces the operation's nature.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance specific to this tool. It does not mention alternatives or conditions for archiving. Usage is implied by the name and initial phrase, but no concrete selection guidance is offered.

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