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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that documents are untouched, retain their project link and stay reachable, and that the project disappears from active listings, the sidebar, and the dashboard count. That is exactly the side-effect profile an agent needs for a non-destructive mutation, and it is consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then reversibility, then the non-effect on documents. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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; the description instead covers the things structured fields don't: reversibility and the blast radius. For a single-required-param archive tool, nothing an agent needs 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% and both parameters (slug, tenant_slug) are already documented in detail, including the multi-workspace fallback. 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 project") plus the mechanism ("sets archived_at"), which immediately separates it from kb_projects_delete and kb_projects_restore. The parenthetical detail makes the semantics unambiguous, not just a restatement of the name.

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?

Clearly signals when this is appropriate versus a hard delete by emphasizing soft-archive/reversibility and naming kb_projects_restore as the undo path. It does not explicitly say "prefer this over kb_projects_delete when you want to retain data," so the routing guidance is strong but implied rather than spelled out.

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