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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the concrete consequences the agent needs: the server stops being served, revisions are blocked, the slug is permanently reserved, and all organization and member credentials are dropped while history remains readable. That is substantive beyond-annotation disclosure of what gets destroyed and what survives.

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?

One dense sentence covering permanence, the two consequences (no serving, no revisions), slug lockout, credential loss, and history retention, followed by a short routing sentence. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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-param destructive mutation with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: reversibility (none), blast radius (all credentials), post-state (history readable), and the non-destructive alternative.

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 schema's server_slug description already explains the slug format and that it comes from list_gateway_servers. The description adds nothing further about the single parameter, 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 and resource ('Archive a gateway server') and immediately pins down the permanent semantics: never served again, no new revisions, slug unusable, credentials dropped, history retained. This is clearly distinct from the sibling deactivate_gateway_server, which is named.

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 routes the agent: use this for permanent archival; 'To pause a server instead, use deactivate_gateway_server.' That is an explicit when-to-use / when-to-use-alternative pair, not implied guidance.

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