direct.hf.unarchive_campaigns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what unarchiving changes, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are needed. Critically, the destructive/execution semantics of the 'apply' and 'dry_run' flags are left completely unaddressed in both the schema and the description.

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, correctly front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though it wastes a few words on the uninformative 'Human-friendly' prefix instead of using the space for the apply/dry_run semantics.

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?

This is a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only partial schema coverage, so the description should do considerably more. It omits any indication that apply commits changes and dry_run previews them, which is the single most important fact an agent needs before calling it.

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 33%, so the burden is partly on the description. The '(by id or name)' phrase usefully maps to campaign_ids vs campaign_name and is the reason this is not lower. However, the two most consequential parameters, apply and dry_run, remain undocumented anywhere, leaving a real 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'unarchive campaigns'. It is readily distinguishable from sibling mutations like direct.hf.archive_campaigns, direct.hf.unarchive_ads and direct.hf.resume_campaigns, and the '(by id or name)' clause hints at accepted identification forms. It stops short of 5 because the 'Human-friendly' qualifier is noise rather than differentiation.

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 statement of when to unarchive versus archive, pause, or resume campaigns, and no prerequisites or conditions are given. The agent must infer entirely from the tool name which of the several lifecycle siblings to call.

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