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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosure. It transparently details the soft-delete behavior, idempotency ('returns its current archivedAt unchanged'), preservation of rows and doc body, required role, and the emitted event `surface.archived`. This is exemplary behavioral transparency.

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 six terse sentences, each adding unique information: purpose, preservation, idempotency, constraint, permission, and event. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or redundant content.

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?

The description comprehensively equips an agent to use the tool: it explains the soft-delete nature, data preservation, idempotency, the critical workspace constraint, required permissions, and the emitted event. Though there is no output schema, the input schema is simple and fully covered, and all behavioral aspects are addressed.

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 100%, with both `slug` and `surface_slug` well-documented in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or meaning beyond the schema, though it does provide contextual constraints on workspace and surface usage. Given the schema's completeness, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Archive a surface (soft-delete)', clearly stating the action and resource. It further distinguishes from hard deletion by noting rows and doc body are preserved for restore, and from update operations by emphasizing archival semantics.

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?

The description explicitly states a critical when-not condition: 'Cannot archive the only live surface in a workspace; create another first.' It also specifies the required Editor role, giving practical prerequisites. However, it does not name alternative tools for permanent deletion or other operations, so it stops short of full alternation guidance.

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