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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by detailing exactly what is destroyed (live credentials and provisioner tokens, permanently), what is preserved (instances and history remain readable), and the asymmetric name/slug outcome. It also warns that restoration is partial, which is the single most important behavioral fact an agent caller needs.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the main action and its irreversible consequences, then the preservation guarantees, then the restore caveat. Each sentence carries information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers effects, reversibility, and the fate of dependent resources and credentials. Nothing material to correct invocation is missing, and annotations already cover the safety profile.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description nevertheless adds genuine meaning by explaining that the slug stays reserved after archival, which affects how agent_slug resolves and how callers should plan re-creation.

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_agent) and immediately enumerates the scope of the operation: credential/provisioner-token revocation, enrollment lockout, name freed but slug retained. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like archive_team, archive_pipeline, and archive_gateway_server, which do not carry these agent-specific effects.

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 makes the use context clear (permanent teardown of an agent) and explicitly names restore_agent as the inverse operation, along with the crucial caveat that restore does not un-revoke credentials. It does not spell out when-not to archive (e.g., prefer deactivation/update_agent for temporary pauses), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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