archive_product_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a meaningful postcondition — archived feeds cannot be used for new campaigns — but does not disclose whether archiving is reversible, how existing campaigns are affected, or what response is returned. Some transparency, but not complete.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first states the action, and the second adds the key consequence; both sentences earn their 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the core information is present, but the description leaves gaps around reversibility, the role of ad_account_id, and the effect on existing campaigns. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 only 50%. feed_id has a minimal schema description, and ad_account_id has none. The tool description does not address ad_account_id at all, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented optional parameter.

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 — 'Archive a product feed' — and immediately differentiates this tool from sibling archive_* tools by naming the product-feed resource. The added consequence, 'Archived feeds cannot be used for new campaigns,' clarifies the intended effect.

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 description implies the tool is used when a product feed should no longer be available for new campaigns, but it never states when not to use it or points to an alternative. There is no explicit exclusion or comparison with related feed or archive tools.

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