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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the behavioral consequences: the path stops being active, refuses new revisions, and keeps its key and history. It also discloses the exact precondition that causes refusal, which is essential for safe invocation of a destructive tool.

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 are front-loaded with the effect and refusal condition. Every clause adds useful information, with no repetition or filler.

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 archive tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers consequences, idempotency-adjacent behavior, and the blocking precondition. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and avoid a predictable failure.

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 one parameter with 100% schema description coverage. The description refers to archiving an escalation path but adds no format or identity semantics for path_key beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: archive an escalation path. It immediately clarifies the scope and effect with 'for good', and the destructive nature distinguishes it from update or activation siblings.

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?

It explicitly states when the tool is refused and points to list_escalation_path_uses to find blocking pipeline revisions. It also tells the agent what to do instead: update those pipelines first.

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