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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by clarifying that existing time entries are preserved and only new timer visibility is affected.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core effect is front-loaded, and the preservation guarantee follows immediately.

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?

The tool has rich annotations, full schema descriptions, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain parameters or return values. It sufficiently covers the key behavioral distinction of archiving versus deleting, though it does not mention whether archiving can be reversed.

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%, including guidance that activityId comes from list_activities and that activityName supports case-insensitive prefix matching. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Archive an activity') and immediately states the operational effect: it will no longer appear for new timers. It also distinguishes archive from deletion by noting that existing time entries are kept.

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?

The description gives clear conditions for use: hide an activity from future timers while preserving existing time entries. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as update_activity or explain when not to archive, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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