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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not the primary safety signal, but it adds little beyond that. The trailing clause 'Its results stay' is ambiguous and never clarifies whether archived requests and their finds are retained or hidden, nor that a revision precondition must be satisfied.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence 'Its results stay' is too cryptic to earn its place and reads as an unfinished thought rather than useful information.

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 destructive mutation with a required revision token and an undocumented boolean that flips the operation's direction, the description omits the information an agent most needs. With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the missing detail leaves real risk of misuse.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that archived is a boolean toggle (default true) that selects archive versus restore, nor what spec_id refers to, nor that expected_revision_id is a concurrency guard that will fail the call if stale.

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 pair and resource: archiving or restoring a saved request. An agent can tell roughly what it does, but there is no differentiation from nearby siblings such as edit_spec, revise_spec, or cancel_find, so the boundary of the operation is inferred rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to archive versus delete or edit, and no explanation of how the restore path is chosen. The phrase 'or restores it' hints that the same tool covers both directions but gives no condition or parameter cue for switching.

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