Archive keywords

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true. However, the description goes beyond them by disclosing irreversibility ('can't be restored'), that keywords stop applying, the 1000-ID cap, and the required literal confirm='ARCHIVE', which the schema's bare string default does not convey.

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 lines with no filler; the sibling pointer, the destructive nature, the confirm requirement and the batch limit are all front-loaded.

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?

Return values need not be described because an output schema exists, and the destructive-call essentials are covered. The only meaningful omission is any explanation of ad_account_id, which is undocumented in both structured and natural-language form.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the ids parameter (keyword or negative keyword IDs, up to 1000 per call) and, importantly, the literal value confirm='ARCHIVE'. The ad_account_id parameter is left unexplained in both the schema and the 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 and resource ('Archive keywords or negative keywords by ID') and names the sibling tool used to obtain the IDs. It is immediately distinguishable from create/update/list keyword tools.

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?

Gives the precondition (IDs come from pinterest_ads_list_keywords) and the user-agreement requirement before confirming. It does not mention alternatives such as pausing via set_statuses instead of an irreversible archive, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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