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

With annotations only covering the safety profile (destructive/idempotent/not-read-only), the description supplies the missing substance: the path stops being active, refuses new revisions, and retains its key and history. It also discloses the refusal condition that makes the call fail, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the irreversible nature and the retention of key/history are front-loaded before the failure precondition. Every clause earns its place.

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 what changes, what is preserved, what causes failure, and how to unblock. Nothing needed 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 coverage is 100% and there is a single path_key parameter already documented as 'The escalation path's key.' The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 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+resource (archive an escalation path) and immediately scopes the semantics with 'for good', distinguishing it from the deactivate/revoke siblings in the tool list. An agent can tell 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?

Gives a clear blocking condition ('refused while any active pipeline revision names it') and names the diagnostic helper to run first (list_escalation_path_uses) plus the resolution step ('update those pipelines first'). It is precondition guidance rather than an explicit use-this-vs-that comparison, so it falls just short of a 5.

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