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

Annotations already mark this destructive and idempotent, but the description adds critical context annotations cannot convey: it does not cancel scheduled posts or pause an attached live ad campaign, and it is not reversible from here (restore happens in the dashboard). That is exactly the side-effect and reversibility information an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary effect front-loaded and the caveats ordered after. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, side-effect boundaries, and reversibility. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 description coverage is 100%, so brandId and campaignId are already fully documented in the schema (campaignId's schema text even repeats the archive caveats). The description adds no new parameter-level meaning such as formats or edge cases, so the 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 ('hides/archive') and resource ('a campaign') and immediately clarifies the concrete effect: it disappears from list_campaigns. This distinguishes it from siblings like pause_ad_campaign and archive_brand without the agent needing to open any 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 an explicit when-to-use ('an accidental duplicate or a test run the user doesn't want cluttering the list') and explicit when-not boundaries ('doesn't cancel scheduled posts or pause a live ad campaign attached to it'). The agent can route between archive_campaign and pause_ad_campaign from the description alone.

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