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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating and irreversible-in-spirit nature is known. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are returned per campaign, implying partial success is possible — but stops short of stating whether the operation is atomic, what happens to campaigns already archived, or how failures are reported.

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 no filler; the trailing clause about per-campaign results is the one piece of non-obvious information and it is kept short. Nothing here could be cut without losing something.

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 no output schema, the description's 'result per campaign' is the only hint about the response shape and it is thin — an agent still does not know the fields, whether failures appear per item, or whether re-archiving an archived campaign errors. For a destructive batch mutation, that leaves meaningful gaps even with annotations covering safety.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The ids of the campaigns to archive (1 to 50)', uniqueItems, minimum 1), so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'one or more' is consistent but adds no constraint or format detail beyond it; 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?

States a specific verb (archive) and resource (campaigns) plus batch scope (one or more). It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling unarchive_campaigns or the broader manage_campaign, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over manage_campaign or when to use the inverse unarchive_campaigns, and no preconditions (e.g. campaigns must be paused, must belong to the caller's account) are stated. The batch nature is implied by 'one or more' but nothing else is offered.

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