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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the "WRITE:" prefix and PUT method add no new behavioral information. The description says nothing about what happens if the campaign is not archived, whether membership/statistics survive, or what error states occur.

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?

Two short sentences, mutation flag front-loaded, no filler. Size is appropriate; it is simply thin on content rather than padded.

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 single-parameter mutation with rich annotations this is marginally adequate, but an agent gets no guidance on preconditions or side effects of restoring a campaign, which is the main thing missing given there is no output schema.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema explaining the numeric id format and origin. The description adds nothing about the id, so the 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 ("restore an archived campaign") and the HTTP endpoint, which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling emailchef_archive_campaign by direction. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it stops short of top marks.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus emailchef_archive_campaign, no prerequisite that the campaign must currently be archived, and no note about what to do if it is not. Usage is only inferable from the word "restore".

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