direct_archive_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It labels the operation as 'WRITE', describes the UI effect, and implies irreversibility by suggesting suspend for reversible cases. But it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or what happens in dry_run mode, which could be important for a mutation tool.

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 exceptionally concise: one line with a clear action prefix, a brief effect, and a usage note. Every part earns its place, and the critical information ('WRITE') is front-loaded.

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?

This is a write operation with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to cover behavior more fully. It lacks information about dry_run behavior, return values (if any), or when to use archive vs unarchive (though it does mention suspend). The sibling set includes many campaign-related tools, and this description does not fully situate the tool within that context.

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 50% (project and allow_write are described), but the description adds no value beyond that: it only restates 'allow_write=true' which is already in the schema. The dry_run and campaign_ids parameters are left unexplained in the description, and the description does not clarify their role in archiving.

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 verb 'archive' and the resource 'campaigns', with a clarification of the effect: 'remove from active UI'. It differentiates from the sibling tool 'direct_suspend_campaigns' by explicitly noting the preference for suspend when reversible stop is desired, and from 'direct_unarchive_campaigns' by the action itself.

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 phrase 'Prefer suspend for reversible stop' gives explicit guidance on when to use an alternative tool (direct_suspend_campaigns). It also hints at the irreversible nature of archiving. However, it does not mention when to use unarchive or other context like requiring the campaign to be active.

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