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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that with concrete effects: removal from all lists, broken share links, purged favourites/Recent/Most Used entries and Inbox threads for everyone, and read/write lockout while archived. These are the exact consequences an agent needs before confirming with a user.

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 ordered by importance: what happens, what it blocks, who may do it. No filler, and the confirmation instruction is placed last where it reads as a final gate rather than burying the action.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and there is only one parameter. The description fully covers side effects, permissions, and the Trash precondition, leaving no material gap for a destructive single-parameter mutation.

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% and the single documentId parameter is already documented as coming from find_documents. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Move a document ... to their Archived') plus the ownership scope, and explicitly names the inverse sibling 'unarchive_document'. An agent can distinguish this from delete_document, restore_document, and unarchive_document without reading 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?

Explicitly routes to unarchive_document for the reverse action, states the precondition ('Only its owner can archive it'), the Trash edge case ('a document in the Trash is restored first'), and a procedural requirement ('Confirm with the user first'). This covers when to use, who may use it, and when to hesitate.

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