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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that with concrete consequences: the slug cannot be reused, every org and member credential is dropped, and history remains readable. That is exactly the extra destructive-effect detail an agent needs before acting.

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 sentences, no filler, with the irreversible consequences front-loaded and the alternative routed in the closing clause. 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, irreversible mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the destructive effects, the non-reuse constraint, credential handling, and post-state readability, while annotations cover the safety profile. 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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where to get the slug and how it prefixes tool names. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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+resource ('Archive a gateway server') and immediately clarifies irreversible scope: never served again, no new revisions, slug not reusable, credentials dropped. This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling deactivate_gateway_server and from archive_agent/archive_pipeline.

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 names the alternative and the condition selecting it: 'To pause a server instead, use deactivate_gateway_server.' Nothing is left to inference about when to pick pause vs. permanent archive.

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