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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: the action is reversible, it does not delete the agent, and the status is changed to archived. This clarifies the exact behavioral impact without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action and effect are front-loaded, followed only by the essential reversibility note.

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, low-complexity action with annotations indicating destructive behavior, the description covers purpose, effect, reversibility, and non-deletion. Nothing critical for correct invocation 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%, so the input schema already fully documents agent_id, including where to obtain it. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Take an agent offline') with a clear resource and outcome, and distinguishes the action from unarchive_agent and deletion. 'Setting its status to archived so it stops serving' precisely defines the behavior.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (to stop an agent from serving) and gives alternatives/limits: 'Reversible with unarchive_agent; does not delete the agent.' This tells the agent it should use unarchive_agent for reversal and confirms this is not a deletion operation.

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