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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and a non-idempotent write, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: content, previous dates and history are retained with no permanent deletion, archive date/reason are recorded, exactly one activity event is created with the user, account/credential restrictions apply, and the non-idempotency risk is spelled out for retry scenarios.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, eligible states and retention semantics before moving to side effects, response shape and retry caution. The final sentence about uncertain delivery is long but carries non-redundant safety information; overall dense, though it could be tightened.

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 two-parameter mutation with a full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: source-state guards, side effects, retry semantics after failure, and even cursor continuation via get_recommendation for the capped evidence/prompt-reference output.

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% and both parameters (siteId, recommendationId) are documented in the schema with source-tool hints (list_sites_and_topics, get_recommendations). The description adds no parameter-level format or syntax detail, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific verb (archive) and resource (recommendation), and states the eligible source states: review, approved or underway. This distinguishes it cleanly from approve_recommendation, decline_recommendation, restore_recommendation and delete-style siblings without requiring a schema lookup.

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 explicit preconditions (must be in review/approved/underway; invalid state is refused with conflict) and clear retry guidance after uncertain delivery or readback failure, pointing to get_recommendation. It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling (restore_recommendation) as the alternative when the wrong state exists, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not/alternative treatment.

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