direct_unarchive_campaigns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write/mutating operation and implies that allow_write=true is needed for actual mutation. However, it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what happens when allow_write is false (e.g., dry plan). The mention of 'SUSPENDED' vs archived adds some context but is minimal.

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: two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose 'WRITE: campaigns.unarchive'. Every word earns its place, and the structure is highly scannable for an AI agent.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core action and one key alternative, but lacks details about return values, dry_run behavior, prerequisites beyond allow_write/project, and potential side effects. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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, dry_run and campaign_ids are not). The description reinforces 'allow_write=true' and 'project scope', but does not clarify dry_run or campaign_ids. It adds some value over the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 'campaigns.unarchive' and identifies it as a WRITE operation on campaigns. This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from all siblings, especially direct_resume_campaigns and direct_archive_campaigns. The phrase 'Prefer resume if only SUSPENDED' further clarifies the distinction.

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?

It explicitly states the required conditions: 'allow_write=true + project scope'. It also gives an alternative: 'Prefer resume if only SUSPENDED', which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and which sibling to prefer instead. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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