archive_ad

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that archiving produces a 'terminal' state and does not state whether the operation is reversible, whether the ad must be in a particular state first, or what side effects occur on the parent campaign. The '(terminal)' hint is a start but leaves most behavioral questions unanswered.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it borders on under-specification — the unexplained '(terminal)' parenthetical could be replaced with a plain behavioral disclosure that would serve agents better without adding noticeable bulk.

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 state-changing mutation with no annotations and no output schema, yet its entire description is six words. An agent cannot determine reversibility, prerequisites, return behavior, or how the operation differs from pause_ad — the description is incomplete for safe invocation.

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 coverage is only 50%: ad_id's schema description is the tautological 'Ad ID.', and ad_account_id has no description at all. The tool description mentions neither parameter, so nothing clarifies what ad_account_id is for or whether it affects invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Archive') with a clear resource ('an ad'), which distinguishes the action from sibling lifecycle tools like pause_ad, activate_ad, and update_ad. The parenthetical '(terminal)' hints at an end-state operation but is ambiguous — an agent must infer whether it means irreversibility, a lifecycle stage, or both.

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?

No guidance is given on when to archive versus using lifecycle siblings such as pause_ad, activate_ad, or archive_campaign. An agent choosing among pause/activate/archive receives no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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