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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing exactly what is destroyed versus preserved: scanning stops and quota is freed, but history is retained, the prompt stays visible as archived, and it can be restored. It also discloses the preview/confirm gating, which is the key behavioral nuance for a destructive tool.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the effect and its consequences come before the procedural instruction, and no sentence is filler. The telegraphic style ('Preview first; confirm: true applies') is compact to the point of slight ambiguity, but it stays readable.

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?

With no output schema and 100% schema coverage on parameters, the description supplies what is missing: reversibility, retained history, quota effect, and the preview-before-apply protocol. It omits edge cases such as behavior for unknown prompt texts or already-archived prompts, but the core call path is fully covered.

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 brand, confirm, and prompts are already documented in the schema. The description's 'confirm: true applies' reinforces the confirm semantics but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (archive prompts) and immediately describes the effect: prompts stop being scanned, quota is freed, history is kept, and they remain listed as archived and restorable. The reversibility phrasing implicitly separates it from remove_prompts, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step workflow: preview first, then apply with confirm: true. It does not state when to choose archive over remove_prompts or what prerequisites apply (e.g. quota limits), so it stops short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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