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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the consequence of deletion ('losing the text') and offering the reversible alternative. It doesn't cover permission requirements or confirmation flow, keeping it short of a 5.

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, zero waste. It front-loads the action and then immediately follows with the safer alternative, which is exactly the ordering an agent needs when weighing deletion.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential missing piece: why archiving is preferable and when deletion is sanctioned. Minor gaps around permissions/confirmation remain, but nothing critical is absent.

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 50%: portal_slug is documented in the schema (with a list_portals reference) but article_id has no description. The description adds no parameter meaning, though the parameter names are largely self-explanatory, landing at the minimum-viable baseline.

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 ('Delete a help center article'), and distinguishes itself from update_article by framing that tool as the non-destructive archiving path. An agent can identify the operation and its scope 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 ('update_article with status archived'), explains its advantage ('keeps it out of the portal without losing the text'), and states the condition under which deletion is warranted ('unless the administrator asks for a deletion'). This is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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