Bulk archive campaigns

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description adds genuinely new context by naming the version floor (Plunk v0.15+), stating the operation is reversible via archived:false, and explaining that no confirmation prompt appears because nothing is lost. It still says nothing about permissions/scopes or batch failure semantics (partial success vs all-or-nothing), which is the main remaining gap for a bulk mutation.

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?

Five labeled lines, each carrying a distinct piece of information (purpose, exclusion, return, usage trigger, caveats), with the core action front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter bulk mutation with a fully covered schema, the description covers purpose, routing, reversibility, and version requirements; the only soft spot is 'Returns: The outcome of the batch,' which is vague. Since no output schema exists, slightly more detail on the result (e.g., per-ID success/failure) would help, but the definition is otherwise complete enough to invoke correctly.

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%: both 'ids' (UUIDs, up to 1000) and 'archived' (true archives, false restores) are fully documented in the schema, and the description's mentions of 'up to 1000' and 'pass archived false to restore' largely restate them. No syntax, ordering, or error-handling detail is added beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (archive or restore) plus the resource (campaigns) and the batch scope (up to 1000 in one call). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (plunk_bulk_delete_campaigns), so an agent can distinguish it from the other bulk campaign tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('clearing a backlog of finished campaigns out of the way'), explicit when-not ('Not for: Deleting them, which is plunk_bulk_delete_campaigns and cannot be undone'), and the alternative tool by name. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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