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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses the post-condition (API answers 410 with a fallback line), irreversibility ('already-downloaded snapshots cannot be recalled'), and the auth contract including the 401-with-OAuth-fallback behavior. That is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by consequences then the auth requirement. Mostly lean, though the 'degrades instead of breaking' clause is mildly narrative and could be tighter.

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 no prose, and the safety profile is well covered by annotations plus the irreversibility and auth notes. The gap is expectedConfigVersion: what happens on a version conflict for a destructive, concurrency-guarded call is left unstated, which could cost an agent a failed or misjudged invocation.

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 only 33%: only idempotencyKey is documented. expectedConfigVersion is an optimistic-concurrency token whose mismatch behavior is not explained anywhere, and datasetId gets only vague ownership framing ('a dataset the account owns'). For a destructive tool, the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

The verb+resource are specific and concrete: 'Stop serving a dataset the account owns' clearly names the action and target, even though it never uses the word 'archive' from the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from atlas_dataset_update or atlas_dataset_publish, so an agent must infer the difference among siblings.

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?

The description gives the effect and intent ('a page that still reads it degrades instead of breaking') and states a prerequisite (signed-in inite.ai account) plus the guest failure path (401 + OAuth). However, it never says when to choose this over atlas_dataset_update or a soft-delete sibling, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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