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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the annotations: past scores and answers are retained, quota impact stops, future visibility runs skip it, and restore-prompt reverses it. This usefully tempers the destructiveHint=true flag by making clear the mutation is reversible and non-data-destroying, without contradicting it.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and its consequences. The trailing fragment "It keeps its topic" is terse to the point of ambiguity but does not bloat the description.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers effects, retention, and reversibility well. Minor gaps: no statement of what happens when archiving an already-archived prompt (idempotency) or what the call returns.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about prompt_id (format, whether it must be an existing/active prompt), so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Archive a prompt") and immediately distinguishes the operation from its inverse by naming restore-prompt. An agent can tell this apart from restore-prompt and from topic-management siblings without opening any schema.

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 clear usage context: archiving removes the prompt from future visibility runs and quota counting, which is the condition under which you would choose it over simply leaving the prompt active. It names restore-prompt as the reversal path but never states an explicit exclusion (e.g., when to prefer removing a prompt from a topic instead).

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