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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful piece of context not in the annotations, namely that this is a soft-delete, but it omits what soft-delete implies operationally (recoverability via unarchive_ad, effect on live delivery, whether dependent entities are touched).

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 the verb, scope, and the crucial soft-delete qualifier; nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

With annotations covering safety and a fully described single parameter, the core is covered. However, the description never mentions that archiving is reversible through unarchive_ad or what archiving does to ads in live campaigns, leaving an agent to infer the recovery path.

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 100% and the ids parameter is fully documented, including bulk usage and the minimum-one constraint. The description only echoes the plural/bulk aspect already stated in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (ads) and clarifies the semantics as a soft-delete, which distinguishes it from a hard delete. It does not acknowledge the sibling unarchive_ad, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to archive versus when to use unarchive_ad, nor on prerequisites such as campaign state or permissions. The intended use is only weakly implied by the verb itself.

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