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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares NOTHING CHANGES (read-only), enumerates the side effects that would occur (active campaign stops ALL outreach, releases mailboxes/LinkedIn accounts), and lists what survives (history, threads, stats, CRM leads). It also flags irreversibility of the corresponding archive, which the agent must convey to the user.

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?

Front-loaded with the key constraint ('NOTHING CHANGES') and packed with useful detail in few sentences. The parenthetical asides make it slightly dense, but no sentence is 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description effectively describes what the preview returns — current status and channels, what stops, what is kept. Combined with the sequencing instruction, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and present results.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including its source ('UUID from list_campaigns'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Show what archiving would do') and immediately distinguishes it from the real mutation by naming archive_campaign as the follow-up. An agent can tell this is a read-only dry run without opening the 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?

Explicit sequencing rule: 'ALWAYS call first and show the user before archive_campaign.' It also names duplicate_campaign as the recovery path, giving the agent an alternative when the user wants the same setup later.

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