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

Annotations only give destructiveHint/readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it leaves list_sites_and_topics, pauses the scan schedule, refuses later edits and Scan starts with site_archived, is blocked by scan_running, spends no Scan allowance, returns alreadyArchived:true, and requires an explicit confirmation because there is no restore. This is exactly the extra context a mutating tool needs.

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 core action, and nearly every clause adds a distinct constraint. It is dense and clause-heavy (multiple semicolon-separated ideas in one paragraph), which slightly taxes scanability, but little is wasted.

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 an irreversible, destructive archive operation with an output schema already handling return shape, the description covers blocking conditions, side effects, confirmation requirements, idempotency, and failure recovery. Nothing an agent needs before calling it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it clarifies the single topicId must be a Topic identifier and that a Site ID is refused, plus that this is the idempotency/readback key for uncertain results. Format details (uuid) live in the schema, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Archive one research Topic by topicId', immediately distinguishing it from the sibling archive_site/archive_client/archive_recommendation tools. It even states what is rejected (a brand Site ID), so an agent knows exactly which identifier is valid.

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?

Names explicit prerequisites and alternatives: 'Read get_topic first', the scan_running refusal condition with the remedy ('wait for it to finish'), the mandatory user confirmation because there is no MCP restore, and an uncertain-result recovery path via get_topic(topicId).topic.archivedAt. When-to-use, when-blocked, and next-step are all covered.

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