direct.hf.archive_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It never states whether archiving is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what effect it has on campaign data. Critically, it is silent on the apply/dry_run parameters, which are the primary safety mechanism for a destructive operation.

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?

One short front-loaded line with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise given the tool's complexity.

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?

A 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than a single line. The absence of any explanation of dry_run/apply semantics or reversibility leaves an agent unable to invoke this safely.

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 coverage is only 33% (6 parameters, 2 documented). The description usefully clarifies that campaigns can be targeted by id or name, mapping to campaign_ids/campaign_name, but apply, dry_run, and the relationship between them are undocumented in both schema and description.

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), and notes the id-or-name selector. It is distinguishable from sibling archive_ads and unarchive_campaigns, though the 'Human-friendly' prefix is filler that adds nothing.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to guidance. It does not mention how this relates to the sibling unarchive_campaigns or whether archiving is reversible, and nothing tells the agent when a dry run is appropriate.

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