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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=false, and the description goes beyond that by characterizing the write as 'soft' (a timestamp, not a deletion) and explicitly reversible. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before mutating state; it only stops short of saying whether archived attachments are hidden from lists or how tenant_slug failures resolve.

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, zero filler, with the core semantics and the escape hatch both front-loaded. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the schema fully documents the two parameters. Combined with the soft/reversible disclosure this is nearly complete; only the observable side effect (visibility in list/get) is left unstated.

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% and both parameters carry detailed descriptions, including the multi-workspace behaviour of tenant_slug and where attachment_uuid comes from. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Soft-archive an attachment') plus the concrete mechanism ('sets archived_at'), which distinguishes it from the sibling kb_attachments_restore by naming the exact opposite operation. An agent can pick the right one without opening the 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?

It points to kb_attachments_restore as the reversal path, which is useful routing, but it never states when archiving is the appropriate choice over leaving an attachment alone or what state archived attachments appear in (e.g. whether kb_attachments_list still returns them). Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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