vast_unarchive_campaign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what impact 'active status' has on campaign serving or related assignments. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately clear.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it does not explain return behavior, potential errors, or the post-condition of the campaign after unarchiving, which would be helpful for an agent to predict outcomes accurately.

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 input schema has full description coverage (100%) for the single 'id' parameter, which is described as 'Archived VAST campaign ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema adequately conveys the meaning, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Restore') and the target resource ('archived VAST campaign') along with the intended outcome ('back to active status'). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'unarchive_campaign', relying on the 'VAST' prefix and description mention to imply the distinction.

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 usage is implied by the description: use this when you want to reactivate an archived VAST campaign. However, it does not mention any prerequisites, such as the campaign must be archived first, nor does it provide alternatives or specify when not to use this tool.

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