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: it discloses what is preserved (rows, doc body, activity history), that the action is reversible via the Archived filter, that members lose access immediately, that it is idempotent with a defined return on repeat calls, the permission prerequisite, and the full approval handshake.

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 core action and its soft-delete guarantee are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds operational information. It is dense and somewhat long, but no sentence is 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns, and it does for the approval path while also covering reversibility, permissions, and idempotency. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by specifying the exact shape of the mode:'web' response ({ status, approval_url, polling_url }) and the poll-for-result workflow, which the schema's short enum wording does not convey.

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 workspace') and immediately clarifies that the operation named 'delete' is actually a soft-delete. This disambiguates it from true-destructive siblings like delete_row, delete_file, and delete_surface.

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 explicit conditional guidance: use mode:'web' for non-trivial workspaces, omit it to execute immediately, and the caller must hold the owner role. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g., update_workspace for rename-only changes), so it falls short of the 5 mark.

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