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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the one-way stop, paused workflows, disabled automations, the fact that unarchiving does not restart anything, and the preservation of leads in flight and campaign history. It also explicitly warns to confirm with the user, which is critical for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and immediately states the most important warning. Every sentence adds necessary operational or safety information, and there is no filler or redundancy; the explicit guidance about related tools is efficient.

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, one-way action with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: the irreversible nature, what gets paused/disables, what happens to leads and history, how to reverse, and how to locate campaigns. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and only provides campaignId as a required string, so the description carries the burden. It adds practical context by telling the agent to use campaignstack_list_campaigns to find valid IDs if the campaign is not found, which helps disambiguate the parameter and offers recovery guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Archive a campaign,' and then clarifies what archiving does. It also differentiates from related operations by explicitly naming unarchive and noting that no data is deleted, distinguishing it from deletion tools in the sibling set.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: confirm with the user before calling, use campaignstack_unarchive_campaign to reverse, use campaignstack_list_campaigns with includeArchived to find archived campaigns, and use campaignstack_list_campaigns to find valid IDs when a campaign is not found. This clearly directs the agent to the right alternatives and gives preconditions.

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