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

Annotations already declare the mutation is non-readonly, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context with 'with a result per campaign,' suggesting partial per-item outcomes, but does not discuss the pending-launch confirmation or any side effects around resumed spend.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. It does not waste words, though the trailing 'with a result per campaign' is a bit vague for the complexity of the operation.

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 mutation tool with an optional parameter specifically about resuming pending launches and spend, the description omits this important behavior. No output schema exists, and 'result per campaign' is too vague to fully convey the partial-success semantics.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters, including the optional confirm_pending_launch_ids, are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb phrase, 'Put archived campaigns back,' and names the resource, campaigns. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling archive_campaigns or unarchive_ad.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'unarchive.'

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