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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: it discloses precisely what is destroyed (routing, own and team-scoped grants, escalation policy), what survives (roster, history, name reusable), and two blocking conditions. The personal-API-key requirement is an auth constraint no annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the effect chain and the refusal conditions. The semicolon-dense second half packs several distinct facts into one sentence, which is efficient though slightly harder to scan than separate clauses.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers effects, retention, preconditions, and auth. The only gap is return behavior on success (confirmation vs. the archived team object), which an agent might want given there is no output schema.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage ('the team's id, from list_teams'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing specific about team_id, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 (archive) and resource (team) and then spells out the exact consequences: leaves routing, revokes grants, deactivates escalation policy. This distinguishes it clearly from the many sibling archive_* tools, notably archive_team_escalation_policy, since it names escalation policy deactivation as one of its side effects rather than its subject.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions for refusal (active escalation path or pending request targeting the team, directory-managed team) and an auth requirement (personal API key). It does not explicitly route to an alternative — e.g. 'to reverse, no restore_team exists' or 'use archive_team_escalation_policy first to clear the blocker' — so the agent must infer the remediation path.

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