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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: readings are preserved and settled entries still read correctly, plus the possibility of a `needs_confirmation` envelope. This clarifies the real blast radius of the 'destructive' flag, though it doesn't detail permission or rate-limit behavior.

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 core action, then supporting consequences and closure conditions. Three sentences, essentially all earning their place, with only mild density in the middle sentence.

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, but the description covers the mutation semantics, data-retention behavior, and the confirmation flow. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; permissions and default workspace behavior are left to the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats that `metricId` accepts an id or slug from ledger_metrics_list, which the schema already states, adding no new syntax or constraint detail.

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?

Specific verb+resource: toggles a metric's gallery state via `archived` true/false. Clearly distinct from siblings like ledger_metrics_update or ledger_metrics_create, and the bidirectional semantics (archive vs. unarchive) are stated up front.

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 when-to-use guidance — 'cleanup for a metric minted once and abandoned, or one the workspace stopped watching' — which frames the intended scenario well. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool (e.g., why not ledger_metrics_update), so it doesn't reach the top bar.

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