Archive campaigns

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds context the annotations cannot: archived campaigns stop serving and cannot be un-archived by Pinterest. It also discloses the confirmation gate, which is essential behavioral knowledge for a destructive write.

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 short sentences, zero filler: operation, irreversibility plus confirmation requirement, then the alternative. The irreversible-consequence warning is front-loaded where it matters most.

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?

The return values need no explanation since an output schema exists, and the destructive semantics are covered thoroughly. The only gap is that ad_account_id, an optional but meaningful scoping parameter for a destructive operation, is never mentioned.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the confirm parameter's required literal value well, but leaves ad_account_id and the format of ids undocumented; the ids array is inferable from 'by ID' but account scoping is not addressed at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Archive campaigns by ID') and immediately distinguishes the irreversible archive from the reversible alternative, pinterest_ads_set_statuses with PAUSED. An agent can select this tool over its siblings without opening any 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?

It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('to stop them temporarily, use ... PAUSED instead'), plus a precondition: the user must agree and confirm='ARCHIVE' must be passed. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

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