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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: it clarifies that composition and delivery history are preserved, so destructiveHint=true means only visibility is affected, not data loss. It also discloses the required creator scope. The scope sentence is duplicated rather than expanding into further behavior (e.g., what happens to linked campaigns).

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 core behavior and effect are front-loaded, but the final two sentences repeat the same creator-scope requirement verbatim ('Requires the creator scope. Requires "creator" scope.'), which is wasted space in an otherwise short description.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility, data preservation, and auth prerequisites. Only the duplicated scope line and the absence of any dependency notes (e.g., effect on campaigns) keep it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's note that restore=true returns the audience to active merely mirrors the schema text. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb (archive) and resource (saved audience) and explains the effect: it hides the audience from the default list, with restore=true as the inverse. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like patch_audience or duplicate_audience, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use it to hide an audience from the default list, and use restore=true to bring it back. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., 'use patch_audience instead to edit fields'), so no alternative routing guidance is provided.

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