archive_campaign

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

The description includes the [mutation] tag, indicating a state change, and specifies the campaign should be 'completada'. However, it does not disclose what happens after archiving (e.g., whether it hides the campaign, if it's reversible, or error conditions for non-completed campaigns). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides only minimal behavioral 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the [mutation] tag. It is efficient and contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose and side effects.

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 mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., campaign must exist and be completed), return value, or potential errors. The presence of sibling unarchive_campaign implies reversibility, but it is not stated. Overall, it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has one parameter (campaign_id) with a description that matches the tool's purpose. The schema description coverage is 100%, and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, the parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced.

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 'archivar' (archive) and the resource 'campaña completada' (completed campaign), with the goal of keeping the list clean. It uses the [mutation] tag to indicate a write operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_campaign, pause_campaign, cancel_campaign, and unarchive_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 description implies the tool should be used on completed campaigns to maintain list cleanliness, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete or pause. It lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for active campaigns) or explicit context about reversibility, though the sibling unarchive_campaign hints at it.

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