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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: readings are retained, settled entries still read correctly, and a `needs_confirmation` envelope may be returned. This usefully clarifies the true (reversible) impact against the destructiveHint=true annotation rather than contradicting it. It doesn't cover auth/permission requirements or workspace-scoping behavior, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and direction semantics, followed by impact and the confirmation caveat. No filler; every sentence carries 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and partly discharges it by disclosing the possible `needs_confirmation` response. Combined with impact/reversibility notes and the id source, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though it doesn't describe the success payload.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's notes on `metricId` accepting an id or slug and the true/false meaning of `archived` restate what the schema provides, 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 (archive/unarchive) and resource (metric), and disambiguates the two directions via `archived: true`/`false`. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like ledger_metrics_update or ledger_metrics_list without opening the 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?

Gives concrete usage context: 'the cleanup for a metric minted once and abandoned, or one the workspace stopped watching.' It also points to ledger_metrics_list as the source of valid ids. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative to use instead, so it doesn't reach 5.

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