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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). It does not disclose whether restoration is reversible, what state the campaign transitions to, or potential error conditions.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to include critical usage or behavioral hints.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It does not mention return values, side effects, or nuances like idempotency, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100% (campaignId is described as 'Campaign ID' in the schema), so the description is not required to add parameter details. It does not provide any additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('restore') and the resource ('previously deleted campaign'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_campaign' and other restore tools, though it lacks additional context about the effect (e.g., making it active again).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites mentioned (e.g., the campaign must be deleted). The description is too brief to inform the agent about appropriate usage context.

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