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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses soft-delete semantics (rows + doc body preserved), idempotency behavior with the exact return value (archivedAt unchanged), a hard failure constraint, the required authorization level, and the emitted `surface.archived` event. This is well beyond a bare verb restatement.

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?

Five tight sentences, each carrying a distinct and necessary fact — semantics, restoration path, idempotency, precondition, authorization, event. The soft-delete clarification is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: what is affected, what is preserved, how to reverse it, the failure condition, the auth requirement, and the side effect. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters (workspace slug with org-prefixed form, surface_slug) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the 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 surface') and immediately clarifies the operation's nature as a soft-delete, which distinguishes it from destructive siblings like delete_row or delete_workspace. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: use `update_surface` with `archived: false` to restore, and `list_surfaces archived: true` to find archived surfaces. It also states preconditions (cannot archive the only live surface; create another first) and the required Editor role, leaving nothing to inference.

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