archive_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description provides behavioral context: it is a guarded write, can preview or archive, and notes that preview/dry_run are supported conditionally. The mention of 'hosted endpoint only' clarifies it is a stub, adding transparency beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and product scope, followed by necessary stub context. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the guarded write nature, preview/archive duality, and stub environment. It could elaborate on the archive behavior, but the context is adequate for an introspection stub.

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% so baseline is 3. The tool description aligns with the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., preview and dry_run as aliases) but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool previews or archives Sponsored Products campaigns, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling archive tools by explicitly targeting Sponsored Products, unlike archive_sb_campaigns or archive_sd_campaigns.

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 mentions it is a guarded write and that the local server is an introspection stub, indicating it is not the actual execution endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus other archive tools beyond the product type differentiation.

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