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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the crucial nuance that the operation is reversible and preserves statistics, which softens and clarifies the 'destructive' label with information not in the annotations. It also gives the underlying HTTP endpoint, though it omits auth/error behavior.

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 compact clauses with zero waste, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the action before the reversal note. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, visibility change, data retention, reversibility, and the endpoint. Missing only permission/error semantics, which is minor at this complexity.

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% for the single campaign_id parameter, and the schema already documents it as the numeric id returned by list tools. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path implying {id}, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('archive a campaign') and immediately differentiates it from the sibling inverse by naming emailchef_unarchive_campaign. The parenthetical clarifies the semantic meaning of archiving (hidden from default list, statistics kept), so an agent can distinguish it from delete-like siblings.

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?

Implies the use case (remove a campaign from the default listing without losing data) and explicitly routes to the reversal tool. It does not spell out exclusions such as when to prefer unarchive or whether send_campaign must be avoided first, but the context is clear.

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