unarchive_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the primary state transition (archived to active), but does not mention edge cases such as what happens if the campaign is already active, permission requirements, or side effects on related entities.

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 that front-loads the action ('Restore') and the target resource. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 state-change tool with one clearly documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the core action and target. It could be enhanced by mentioning the relationship to archive_campaign or noting that this is the inverse operation, but the essential information is present.

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, which the schema describes as 'Archived campaign ID'. The description adds the context that the campaign is 'standard', but the parameter meaning is already fully conveyed by the schema, so the description adds minimal additional value.

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 resource ('archived standard campaign') with a clear outcome ('back to active status'). It also distinguishes from the sibling vast_unarchive_campaign by specifying 'standard', which differentiates the target campaign type.

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 when a campaign is archived and needs to be reactivated, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or note any prerequisites (e.g., retrieving the archived campaign first). No exclusion criteria are provided.

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