unarchive_advertiser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It clearly states the state change (archived to active), which is the core behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, permissions, or behavior if the advertiser is not currently archived.

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 concise sentence (8 words) that is front-loaded with the action and object. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys the action and its effect. It lacks only minor context such as prerequisites or return value, but the overall purpose is clear and complete for a straightforward state-change operation.

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 100% for the single 'id' parameter ('Archived advertiser ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore') and clearly identifies the resource and target state ('archived advertiser' to 'active status'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_archived_advertiser (read-only) or archive_advertiser (opposite operation).

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 used to reverse an archiving action, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_archived_advertisers to find the ID) or mention any prerequisites. It relies on the tool name and sibling context rather than providing explicit guidance.

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