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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint true, openWorldHint true), the description adds crucial behavioral context: it clarifies that archiving does not stop an active sequence, and it warns that writes land in a shared workspace with no per-caller isolation. These details are not visible in structured fields and significantly help an agent anticipate side effects. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediate effect, then supplying the critical caveat about aborting active sequences and the workspace side effect. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it does, when to use it instead of abort, and the shared-workspace consequence. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description covers both the operational and environmental context.

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?

The schema description covers the single parameter 'sequence_id' with 'Sequence ID.' The tool description does not add further meaning to this parameter beyond that. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description carries no extra burden; baseline 3 is appropriate as it neither enhances nor degrades the schema's clarity.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Archive a sequence'), the resource ('sequence'), and the effect ('removing it from the active list while keeping its history'). It also explicitly differentiates this from the sibling abort tool by noting that archiving does not stop an active sequence, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative: it instructs callers to deactivate a still-sending sequence with `post_apollo_emailer_campaigns_sequence_id_abort` before archiving. This directly addresses usage context and exclusion criteria, leaving no ambiguity about the correct invocation scenario.

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