archive_sb_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the guarded write nature and that the tool is a stub, adding transparency. However, it does not explain the side effects of archiving (e.g., campaign state changes) or what 'guarded write' entails beyond preview support.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with a brief tag and one note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 lack of output schema and five parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain expected return values, the difference between preview and archive outcomes, or the implications of 'guarded write.' The stub note partially excuses functional details, but for an agent to invoke it correctly, more context is needed.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds the '[Ads / guarded write]' tag but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Thus, the description offers minimal added value for parameters.

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 Brands campaigns, distinguishing it from sibling tools targeting different ad types (SD, SP). The mention of 'hosted endpoint only; this local stdio server is an introspection stub' clarifies the tool's limited functionality, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use preview vs archive or when to prefer this tool over alternatives like archive_sd_campaigns. The sibling list is extensive, and the description offers no differentiation criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name alone.

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