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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely useful clarification: the operation is a soft archive (status change), not a row deletion, and it returns the updated fact. This reframes the destructive hint in a way the annotations alone cannot, though it omits permissions or whether archived facts can be unarchived.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its purpose front-loaded before the soft-delete clarification and return value. Nothing could be cut without losing 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 single-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and idempotency and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what happens to the row and what is returned. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented optional brandId and any unarchive path.

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% for two parameters. The description explains factId implicitly ('by id'), which is the required parameter, but says nothing about the optional brandId or what scoping it performs, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb (archive), resource (creator fact), and scope qualifier ('by id'), plus the effect on downstream generation. It implicitly contrasts with hard deletion by noting the row is kept, though it does not name sibling tools like delete_content or list_creator_facts.

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?

'so it stops feeding generation' implies when a caller would want this (suppressing a fact from generation), and 'The row is kept (status archived), not deleted' hints at the soft-vs-hard-delete choice. However, it never states explicit conditions or names an alternative tool, leaving routing to inference.

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