kadam_adv_set_campaign_folder_status

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, it discloses cascading effects (activating/pausing/archiving a group also affects all contained campaigns) and an all-or-nothing failure mode for restore, which is valuable operational context. It does not describe permissions, rate limits, or return shape, but it adds real behavior beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope ('Bulk action on campaign groups') and compressed into roughly two sentences. The parenthetical clarifications (folder terminology, inverse relationship) earn their place, though the sentence is dense.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the bulk semantics, ID format, every action's effect, and the restore precondition, plus the idempotency annotation. Only minor gaps remain (no note on what happens to already-active groups, no permission requirements).

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?

With 50% schema coverage, only 'ids' is documented in the schema; the description compensates by defining what each enum value of 'action' actually performs (activate, pause, archive, restore) and restating the comma-separated 'ids' format. This meaningfully extends what the bare enum and schema provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Bulk action on campaign groups') and enumerates exactly what activate/pause/archive/restore do at the group level. It also disambiguates terminology ('campaign group = the UI term for a folder'). It stops short of contrasting itself with the sibling kadam_adv_set_campaign_status, which operates on individual campaigns rather than groups.

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 gives per-action semantics and a concrete precondition for restore ('accepts ONLY archived group IDs and rejects the whole call if a live ID is passed'), which tells the agent when restore is valid. It does not name an alternative tool or state when to prefer this over single-campaign status tools, so no explicit exclusions.

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