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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the mechanism (sets archived_at), that document links are preserved, and that the group just drops out of active listings and the sidebar. With destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true already declared, this adds the practical consequences an agent needs; only permission/prerequisite details are absent.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the reversibility/preservation caveats following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers scope, reversibility, and side effects. It could say more about archiving an already-archived group, though idempotentHint=true largely covers that, making this close to complete.

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 (slug, tenant_slug) are fully documented there, including the multi-tenant fallback advice. The description adds no parameter-level information, 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 ('Soft-archive a group') and immediately clarifies the mechanism ('sets archived_at'), distinguishing it from kb_groups_delete and kb_groups_restore by name. An agent can pick this tool over its siblings 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?

Explicitly names the alternative path ('Reversible via kb_groups_restore') and explains the effect (leaves active listings and sidebar), which implies when to prefer archive over delete. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it is not a 5.

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