archive_sb_negative_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a '[Ads / guarded write]' and that this is a 'local stdio server [introspection stub]' – indicating it cannot actually perform the action. However, it does not explain consequences of archiving, authorization needs, or what 'guarded' means.

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 efficient sentence, front-loading key information ('Ads / guarded write', 'preview or archive', 'introspection stub'). Every part earns its place, though it could be structured slightly more explicitly.

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 parameters (0 required) and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and the stub nature, but lacks depth on parameter use, common scenarios, or error handling. It is adequate but not comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats 'preview' without elaborating on parameter usage or relationships. No added value for parameter understanding.

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 can 'Preview or archive Sponsored Brands negative targets,' which matches the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like 'archive_sb_targets' by specifying negative targets, but does not explicitly differentiate from other archive tools for different ad types.

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 usage for Sponsored Brands negative targets via the tool name and context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.

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