archive_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the most important behavioral trait: this is a soft-delete and the campaign can be restored later. This exceeds a bare 'Archive campaign' and gives the agent essential knowledge about reversibility.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that packs key facts: action, resource type, and behavioral effect. No wasted words.

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 simple, one-parameter operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the resource type ('standard' vs. sibling vast variants), the soft-delete semantics, and restore possibility, giving an agent sufficient context to select and use the tool.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema ('Campaign ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter context, but none is needed given the simple schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Archive'), the target ('a standard campaign'), and the crucial distinction from hard delete via 'soft-delete, can be restored later'. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like 'delete_campaign' and 'vast_archive_campaign' by specifying 'standard'.

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?

The description implies the tool is for reversible deletion, suggesting use when you want to temporarily deactivate a campaign rather than permanently remove it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the soft-delete clarification provides clear context for typical usage.

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