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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it is 'state-changing', the archive happens 'after authorization', and the generation is not deleted. This is useful beyond the structured hints.

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 sentences, no waste. The user-intent trigger and the non-deletion guarantee are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is compactly appended.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, trigger, prerequisite, and authorization context. It lacks only explicit undo/restore guidance, a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents generation_id. The description reinforces the list-generations prerequisite but adds no format or syntax detail, 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+resource (archive an existing generation) and immediately scopes it as removing it from the active list 'without deleting it'. That negative clause distinguishes it from destructive siblings like delete-space-items and from restore-generation's inverse operation.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('when the user wants to archive, hide, or remove') and states the prerequisite that generation_id must come from list-generations. It does not name restore-generation as the explicit undo path, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than stated.

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