vast_archive_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that archiving is reversible (soft-delete), which is essential for an agent to understand the consequences. It could add more context about side effects or state changes, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any filler. Every word adds value, making it an model of concise writing.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what it does and the key reversible behavior, which is sufficient for basic usage. It does not mention what happens to associated entities (e.g., schedules, assignments) upon archiving, but that may be outside the intended scope.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for the only parameter, defining 'id' as 'VAST campaign ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage nuance beyond that, so it does not improve upon the schema in this regard.

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' and the resource 'VAST campaign', and explicitly explains the behavior as a soft-delete that can be restored. This distinguishes it from hard-delete tools like vast_delete_campaign and from the opposite unarchive tool.

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?

By defining 'soft-delete, can be restored later', the description implies when to use this tool (when reversible deletion is desired) and hints at alternatives (permanent deletion or unarchiving). However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools or list when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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