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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by scoping the blast radius ('Campaigns already using its copy are not changed') and restating idempotency in behavioral terms, which tells the agent it can safely retry. It does not say whether the archive is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, what it does not affect, and retry behavior. The most decision-relevant clause (no new campaigns) is front-loaded with no filler.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with a nested request object and no output schema, the description covers intent, blast radius, and idempotency well. It leaves two gaps an agent must resolve from the schema alone: which id to supply and what the optional 'body' object means, and whether the operation can be undone.

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 0%, so the schema provides only structural shape: a nested params object with a required uuid 'id' and an untyped optional 'body' object. The description never mentions the identifier, what it refers to (template id), or what the 'body' object is for, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Archives a saved message sequence') and states the resulting effect ('can no longer be used for new campaigns'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like getSequenceTemplate or duplicateSequenceTemplate. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with archiveCampaign or discardCampaign, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 when to use it (retiring a template from future campaign creation) and clarifies a key boundary: existing campaigns using its copy are unaffected. However, it names no alternatives and gives no preconditions, so an agent weighing archiveSequenceTemplate against discardCampaign or restoreCampaign gets no explicit routing guidance.

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