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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that this is a soft archive setting archived_at and that it is reversible via restore. It does not discuss permissions or tenant scoping, but the schema handles tenant_slug thoroughly.

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 with zero waste. The key behavior is front-loaded and the reversal path is given immediately afterward.

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 simple archive operation with rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides exactly what an agent needs: the soft-archive semantics, the field changed, and the restore path. Nothing essential 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%, so document_id, tenant_slug, and include_body are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying that archiving affects archived_at rather than the document body.

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 the specific verb and resource ('Soft-archive a document') and immediately clarifies the mechanism ('sets archived_at'). This distinguishes it from sibling kb_documents_delete and points to kb_documents_restore for reversal.

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 makes clear this is the reversible archive path and names kb_documents_restore as the alternative for undoing it. It does not explicitly contrast with kb_documents_delete, but the 'soft' framing implies the distinction.

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