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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: it discloses that archiving is a soft archive that preserves linked audiences, that the operation is reversible via status=active, and that 'creator' scope is required. What is missing is whether unspecified fields are left untouched on a partial update.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the status semantics, then the authorization prerequisite. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess at; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and an output schema in place, the description covers the remaining unknowns an agent needs: reversibility, data preservation, and the required scope. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the behavioral consequence of each status enum value (soft-archive vs restore) rather than just restating the field. It still says nothing about name/description constraints or clearing behavior, which the schema handles alone.

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 (update) and resource (campaign) plus the exact mutable fields (name, description, status), which cleanly separates it from create_campaign, get_campaign, and the audience-side patch tools. It stops short of naming a sibling it is commonly confused with, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 concrete conditional guidance for the two status values: status=archived to soft-archive while preserving linked audiences, status=active to restore an archived campaign. It does not address when to prefer this over sibling tools like archive_audience or link_audience_to_campaign, so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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