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

With annotations present, the description adds valuable behavior: the operation is reversible, the script and recorded video are kept, and permanent deletion is deliberately outside the assistant's scope. This aligns with `idempotentHint: true` and `destructiveHint: false`, and there is no contradiction.

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 purposeful sentences front-load the primary action, add the restoration behavior, then state the important boundary around permanent deletion. There is no filler or repeated information from the schema.

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?

Given the small parameter count, strong schema coverage, and useful annotations, the description is effectively complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It could add a note about how restored archived scripts appear in lists, but that is not critical for correct use.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters and includes helpful field descriptions, including that ids come from list_planned_scripts and that restore defaults to false. The description reinforces `restore: true` behavior but does not need to fill a schema gap.

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 names the exact action and resource: it archives planned scripts out of the working plan, plus the same tool can restore via `restore: true`. That makes its purpose distinct among sibling tools like edit_planned_scripts, list_planned_scripts, and reorder_planned_scripts.

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 describes the intended use case ('the right way to clear finished or shelved work') and states the assistant cannot permanently delete. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the context is accurate and a strong enough boundary.

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