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

Goes well beyond the annotations: nothing a recipient sees changes and already-sent emails stay sent, the record is retained and readable, it stops counting toward the workspace cap, it returns changed: false when already in that state (nothing written), and it enumerates the exact failure codes (campaign_sending, campaigns_limit, not_found). It even flags that titles and viewer-supplied text in results are untrusted content.

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?

One dense paragraph in which nearly every sentence carries operational information, front-loaded with the verb and the toggle. The opening gloss of what a 'drop' is runs long for an archive tool and could be compressed, but it is not padding.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: state effects, side effects on recipients, quota interaction, the changed:false no-op, and the full error surface. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 coverage is 100%, so archived and campaignId are already documented, but the description adds state-transition meaning the schema cannot: archived:false returns the drop to the sent tab (or active if unsent) and can trip campaigns_limit at the cap. This exceeds the baseline-3 expectation for fully documented schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Archives a drop') and immediately explains the inverse operation via archived: false, so the toggle semantics are unambiguous. It even parenthesizes the API name ('a campaign in the API'). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling lnkdrp_restore_drop, which an agent will plausibly treat as the unarchive counterpart, nor from lnkdrp_archive_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?

Gives clear usage context: archiving is how you free capacity against the plan's drop cap, and it names the sibling reads (lnkdrp_get_drop, lnkdrp_list_drops with state archived) for consuming an archived drop afterward. It stops short of explicit exclusions — it does not say when to prefer restore_drop over archived:false.

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