Archive ads

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered structurally. The description still adds genuinely new behavioral facts: archived ads stop serving and the action is irreversible on Pinterest's side ('can't un-archive'), plus a confirmation-token gate. It stops short of describing partial-batch failures or what happens to dependent entities, which keeps it below a 5.

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 tight sentences: the action, the consequence plus required confirmation, then the alternative. The irreversible nature and the confirm requirement are front-loaded ahead of the redirect to set_statuses, so a skimming agent cannot miss them.

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 destructive mutation this covers the critical ground: preconditions, irreversibility, and the safer alternative, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The only meaningful gap is scope handling for 'ad_account_id' when archiving ads across accounts, which an agent would have to guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the non-obvious 'confirm' parameter — the literal value 'ARCHIVE' is required. However, 'ids' is only implied by 'by ID' (no format, batch-size, or single-vs-multiple guidance) and 'ad_account_id' is never mentioned at all, leaving two of three parameters without added meaning.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource combination, 'Archive ads by ID', which tells an agent exactly what entity is affected and that the operation is batch/keyed. It does not need to distinguish itself from archive_campaigns or archive_ad_groups since the resource noun 'ads' does that work implicitly.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not and the alternative: for a temporary stop, use pinterest_ads_set_statuses with PAUSED instead. It also states the precondition for calling it at all — the user must agree and confirm='ARCHIVE' must be supplied — leaving nothing to inference.

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