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

Goes well beyond the annotations: despite destructiveHint=true, it clarifies the blast radius explicitly (screening, candidates, notes and criteria are kept), documents idempotent behavior on already-closed roles, describes the public-facing consequence, and names the auth/token and workspace-permission requirements. This is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its synonym, then effects, then prerequisites. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 state-change tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its side effects, non-effects, idempotency, external visibility, and authorization requirements. An agent can call this correctly without further context.

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 50%: workspaceId is documented in-schema but roleId is not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, though roleId is self-evident from its UUID format and name, so the gap is minor rather than blocking.

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 ("Close (archive) a role") and immediately disambiguates "close" as archival rather than deletion, which is the main ambiguity an agent could have. No sibling performs this operation, so the definition is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Usage is implied through effects ("a role that is already closed is left as it is", "no longer accepts applications from its public roles page"), which tells the agent the operation is idempotent. However, it never states when to close versus leave a role open, nor names any alternative path, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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