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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that archiving removes the contact from active campaigns, but does not say whether the action is reversible, whether data is retained, or what happens to sequence enrollments — meaningful gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and its effect; nothing wasted. It is arguably too short rather than too long, but structure is sound.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all three params are described in the schema. However, for a destructive mutation tool the description leaves reversibility and side effects (campaign/sequence impact) unstated, which is more than trivial for correct invocation.

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%, so id, archived, and workspace_id are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the archive/unarchive duality that the archived flag already encodes, adding no new semantics.

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 pair (archive/unarchive) and resource (Contact) plus the effect of archiving ('remove from active campaigns'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like archive_list, archive_sequence, and archive_template by naming the resource, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 effect ('remove from active campaigns') implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to near-neighbors such as remove_contact, move_lead, or unsubscribe_lead_from_sequence, which an agent could easily confuse with archiving.

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