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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the target is a 'previously deleted' campaign, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or state changes beyond that.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the core function, and the 'previously deleted' condition clarifies the expected input state. No additional edge-case details are necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'campaignId' with a clear description 'Campaign ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Restore a previously deleted campaign' uses a specific verb (restore) and resource (campaign), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_campaign, update_campaign, and delete_campaign. It unambiguously conveys the tool's purpose.

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 phrase 'previously deleted campaign' implies this tool is for restoring campaigns that have been deleted, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as handling already-active campaigns.

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