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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the side effects on scheduled posts (stay approved, lose their time, are not re-scheduled on restore), confirms published posts are untouched, notes the ad campaign is unaffected, and warns it is not reversible from this tool. The destructiveHint=true annotation is fully corroborated and enriched.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers side effects and caveats in tight clauses. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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 carries the full burden of outcomes and does so: what gets hidden, what happens to scheduled vs published posts, ad campaign impact, and reversibility are all covered.

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 brandId and campaignId are already documented, including the archive semantics in the campaignId field. The description adds behavioral color rather than new parameter syntax, 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 and resource ("Hides a campaign from list_campaigns") and immediately scopes the intent (accidental duplicate or test run). An agent can distinguish this from archive_brand or pause_ad_campaign without opening a 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 explicit when-to-use conditions (duplicate, test run cluttering the list) and when-not behavior (doesn't pause a live ad campaign attached to it), plus the restoration path. Routing is unambiguous even though sibling tool names aren't cited.

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