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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the state transition, that outreach halts, that the record is hidden from default lists, that history remains readable via include_archived, and that the action is not reversible. Those are exactly the consequences an agent needs before triggering a mutation.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the irreversible/state-change consequences are front-loaded before the approval gate. Every clause carries operational meaning.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers effects, reversibility, and the required approval workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already saying it is a UUID from list_campaigns. The description adds no additional per-parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies; the mention of include_archived refers to a listing flag elsewhere, not to this tool's input.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource ('Archive the campaign') and immediately states the resulting state change (status becomes completed, outreach stops, hidden from default lists). The contrast with a destructive delete is implicit but clear from 'history stays readable with include_archived', so an agent can tell this apart from delete_campaign without opening another schema.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite chain: call preview_archive_campaign first and obtain the user's explicit approval. That is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternative siblings (pause_campaign, delete_campaign) or when-not-to-use conditions, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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