archive_campaign_groupSoft-delete a campaign group and all campaigns within it, clearing inactive data while preserving recoverability. For the default group, move campaigns elsewhere first because it cannot be archived.
Soft-delete the group AND every campaign in it. The default group cannot be archived; ask the user to move campaigns out first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | Campaign group UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the cascade behavior (group and campaigns) and the restriction on default groups. Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description's 'soft-delete' aligns with destructiveHint false. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. The key information (what it does, exception) is front-loaded. Every part earns its place.
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 1 parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's main behavior and an important exception. Siblings like archive_campaign and unarchive_campaign_group provide context. A small gap is not mentioning any side effects beyond soft-delete, but annotations fill that role.
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?
The single parameter (group_id) already has a full schema description ('Campaign group UUID.'), so the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the context of archiving. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('soft-delete') and the resources affected ('the group AND every campaign in it'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_campaign (single campaign) and cancel_campaign_group (different action).
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?
Explicitly states when not to use (default group) and what to do instead ('ask the user to move campaigns out first'). Could be improved by mentioning archive_campaign as an alternative for individual campaigns, but the guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.