Archive campaign

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: no un-archive path exists, archived campaigns disappear from lists, and archiving does not cascade to ad groups and ads. That non-cascade detail is exactly the non-obvious side effect an agent cannot get from schema or annotations.

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, front-loaded segments with zero padding: the action, the warning, and the scope caveat. The PERMANENT/MEASURED labels read as structured emphasis rather than filler.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the consequences, the list-visibility effect, and the confirm-with-user requirement. It stops short of stating prerequisites such as whether the campaign must be paused or ended first, which is the only notable gap.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including the id pattern, so the description adds nothing about campaign_id format or sourcing. A 3 baseline is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden and the description contributes no extra semantics.

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?

"Archive a campaign" is a specific verb+resource, and the PERMANENT note separates it from reversible siblings like pause_campaign and activate_campaign without needing to name them. An agent can tell what state transition this performs at a glance.

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 explicit pre-call guidance ("Say so to the user before calling") and the irreversibility note implicitly steers agents away from using it as a soft stop. What is missing is an explicit statement of when to choose archive_campaign instead of pause_campaign, so the alternative selection is left partly to inference.

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