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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, and the description adds substantial detail beyond them: credentials and provisioner tokens are permanently revoked, no new instances can enroll, the name is freed while the slug remains reserved, and instances/history remain readable. It also discloses the irreversibility boundary via restore_agent, which is exactly the context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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, front-loaded with the action and its consequences, with zero filler. Every clause (revocation, enrollment block, name/slug handling, readable history, restore caveat) conveys distinct behavioral 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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effects, irreversibility, collateral state (instances/history), and the recovery path. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether to call it 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 the single parameter already documents itself as 'the agent's slug, from list_agents.' The description adds no further semantics about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate — the schema carries the load.

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 an agent') plus the scope of what archiving means, which clearly separates it from sibling mutations like deactivate_gateway_server or revoke_agent_credential. An agent can distinguish it from restore_agent and the other archive_* tools without opening any 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?

The description gives a clear operational context: revokes credentials permanently, blocks enrollment, frees the name but keeps the slug. It also names restore_agent as the recovery path and flags its limit ('revoked credentials stay revoked'), which is a useful when-to-use/when-not signal, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like revoke_agent_credential or update_agent.

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