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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: the side effects on the plan's client limit, the fact that projects retain the link and time is preserved, and the two-phase preview/commit behavior. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail that earns a top score even when annotations are present.

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 compact clauses with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, the effects follow immediately, and the confirm requirement is stated last where it functions as the pre-call checklist item.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what changes, what is preserved, and the mandatory confirm flag that prevents an accidental commit. Nothing material is left unstated.

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 50%: confirm is already fully documented in the schema, and the description essentially restates its preview semantics rather than adding new meaning, while clientId carries no description in either place. Schema does the heavy lifting for the one documented parameter, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Archives a client") and then goes further, explaining the concrete effects: it leaves the active list, stops counting toward the plan's client limit, keeps project links, and preserves time. A sibling restore_client exists, and while the description never names it, the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied through the archiving semantics (the client leaves the active list) and the confirm gate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against the obvious alternative, restore_client, or delete-style operations. An agent must infer the trigger condition from context.

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