archive_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden. It substantively discloses that the operation is terminal and cannot be undone via activate, which is the critical behavioral trait for this mutation tool. It does not detail side effects on ads or authorization, but the irreversibility warning is strong context.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that packs essential information. There is zero filler and every word adds value.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers the essential call correctly. It lacks explicit guidance on when to supply the ad_account_id override and what response to expect, but the terminal qualifier supplies the most important operational context.

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 campaign_id and ad_account_id already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the weight and a baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Archive a campaign') and immediately adds a distinguishing qualifier ('terminal — cannot be reactivated via activate'). This makes it unmistakable what the tool does and separates it from pause_campaign and activate_campaign.

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?

The terminal qualifier gives clear context for when to use this tool: choose it when you want an irreversible archive rather than a pause, and do not expect to bring the campaign back with activate. It does not explicitly name an alternative like pause_campaign, so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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