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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the closing sentence 'Repeating the call with the same input leaves the same result' largely restates structured data. The genuinely additive piece is 'Nothing is sent,' which reassures an agent that restoring drafts does not trigger outbound messages despite the mutation flag. It does not address permissions, whether previously sent drafts are affected, or what state the restored drafts land in beyond 'inbox.'

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 with the core behavior front-loaded; no filler or marketing language. The idempotency sentence is arguably redundant with the annotation and could have been replaced with parameter clarification, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what is returned (e.g., count of restored drafts) and which identifier is expected, neither of which is covered. The narrative behavior is solid for a mutation tool, but the parameter gap leaves an agent unable to call it confidently.

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% and the description never mentions either parameter. It does not state that 'id' is the campaign UUID (as opposed to a draft id or contact id), which is the single most important disambiguation for a nested id-only schema. The 'body' object is also left unexplained.

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 ('Brings back') and a specific resource ('unsent drafts ... discarded when a paused or completed campaign was archived'), which is far more precise than the title alone. It stops short of naming sibling tools such as restoreCampaign or discardCampaign, so an agent must infer the boundary from the archived-campaign qualifier rather than from an explicit contrast.

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 trigger condition is implied well: drafts discarded by archiving a paused or completed campaign. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the complementary action (discardCampaign), and no note about what happens if the campaign is not archived. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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