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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the description carries the behavioral load and does so well: it discloses the cross-system effects (channel + fulfillment unsync, hide) and a specific failure mode with a named error payload ('returns blocking_orders'). Nothing here contradicts the annotations; the cross-channel reach is consistent with openWorldHint=true.

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 front-loaded sentences, each earning its place: effect, failure mode with remedy, then the alternative/restore pointer. The stray artifact token '[#4b1462]' at the end is unexplained noise that slightly blemishes an otherwise tight structure.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the one return signal that matters (blocking_orders on failure) plus reversibility via restore_product. For a 2-param, non-nested mutation with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% for both parameters (workspace and product_uuid are fully documented in the schema), so the description is not required to explain them. It adds no parameter-specific detail, which is the correct baseline when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 product') and expands into concrete side effects: unsync from every sales channel and fulfillment provider, then hide. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_product and points to restore_product, so the agent can route without opening either schema.

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 an explicit selection rule ('Use archive rather than delete_product when a product has order history'), names the restore counterpart, and states the precondition for failure (pending orders on its variants) plus the remedy. When-to-use and a real alternative are both present.

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