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

The annotations mark this as destructive, but the description adds important nuance beyond that: the article leaves lists, gets a new archived-<id> slug, frees the old slug, and retains its content. This gives the agent a clear picture of what 'destructive' actually means here.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds useful information about effects. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety, the description explains the key side effects well. It does not mention return behavior, idempotency, or what happens if the article is already archived, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single required article_id parameter, including its uuid format. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Archive an article') and immediately clarifies the operational effect: removal from article lists, slug replacement, and content retention. That is enough for an agent to distinguish this from sibling operations like update-article or publish-article.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'do not use this when' guidance, and no sibling alternative is named. However, the stated effects imply appropriate scenarios, such as hiding an article from lists while keeping its content or freeing its slug for reuse.

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