archive_sp_negative_targets

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the tool is a guarded write and hosted endpoint, and notably states it is an introspection stub on a local server. However, no details on side effects, permissions, or response behavior beyond the stub nature.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by critical context about being a stub. Every sentence 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 no output schema and the stub nature, the description covers the tool's essential behavior. However, it omits what the stub returns or how to interpret responses, which would be helpful for an agent.

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%, providing full param descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it briefly mentions 'preview or archive' which maps to the preview parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool previews or archives Sponsored Products negative targets, specifying both the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'archive_sp_negative_keywords' by naming 'negative targets', but could be more explicit about differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'archive_sp_negative_keywords' or 'archive_sp_targets'. The note about being an introspection stub is useful but does not cover usage context.

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