archive_campaign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral effects (cannot spend, hidden from default views) and clarifies it's the permanent-ish deletion mechanism. However, it doesn't mention reversibility or any downstream effects on reporting, which would be additional value, but it's already quite transparent.

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 action, and every word adds value. It is concise without sacrificing essential behavioral information.

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 complexity (a write operation with no annotations or output schema), the description sufficiently explains the impact on the campaign status. It could include more about prerequisites or reversibility, but it is complete enough for an agent to understand the primary outcome and use case.

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 each parameter (profileId, campaignId, campaignType) is already documented. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters themselves, only contextualizing the overall effect. This meets 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 ('Archive a campaign') and the resource, and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it's the only way to 'delete' a campaign. It also specifies the consequences (cannot spend money, hidden from default views), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to effectively delete a campaign) and explains the behavioral outcome. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but it implies this is the go-to for removal, which is sufficient for basic guidance.

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