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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds the concrete blast radius: revisions survive in readable form, nothing stays active, the key is irrecoverably consumed, and requests can no longer reach it. It also discloses the two refusal preconditions, which annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentences with the primary effect stated first, followed by the refusal conditions and the remedy. No filler clauses; each phrase carries distinct operational 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers outcome, irreversibility, post-conditions, and preconditions. Combined with annotations that carry the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains the 'entry' key versus a delegate target key. The description reinforces the entry-pipeline concept only indirectly through the refusal rule and adds no format or syntax detail, 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?

Names a specific verb (archive) and resource (pipeline), then spells out the three concrete effects: revisions remain readable, the key is permanently consumed, and no request can reach it. This clearly separates it from the many sibling archive_* tools, which target agents, teams, webhooks, etc.

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 states when the call is refused (the entry pipeline, or while an active revision still delegates to it) and points to the diagnostic sibling list_pipeline_uses to identify blockers. It also gives the remediation step: remove the delegate blocks first.

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