direct.hf.archive_ads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden for a mutation tool, and it says nothing about reversibility, whether archiving stops delivery immediately, permission requirements, or rate limits. The presence of apply and dry_run parameters makes the omission of whether a call is a preview or a real write especially damaging.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded, so it is not bloated. However, the 'Human-friendly:' prefix is dead weight and the overall brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 7-parameter destructive-state mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and sparse schema coverage, this description leaves critical details (dry-run behavior, required identifiers, scope of the archive) entirely unaddressed. It is substantially inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 only 29, so most of the 7 parameters (apply, dry_run, ad_ids, campaign_id, campaign_name) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds zero parameter meaning and does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('archive ads'), which is distinguishable from sibling operations like pause_ads, resume_ads, and unarchive_ads. It does not explicitly name those siblings, keeping it a step below the top score, and the 'Human-friendly:' prefix carries no meaning.

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 indication of when to choose archive_ads over pause_ads, resume_ads, or unarchive_ads, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions or the relationship between the apply and dry_run flags. The agent is left to infer everything about invocation context.

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