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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only give destructive/idempotent/openWorld hints) by disclosing reversal path (restorable from the PostRite app), the publishing consequence, and a hard prerequisite — the organization's 'Allow deleting via remote MCP' setting — plus the exact failure mode and message (403 'MCP delete is disabled'). That prerequisite is a genuine invocation blocker an agent would not learn from structured fields.

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 compact sentences: the effect is front-loaded and the authorization caveat follows. Slight deduction because the caveat is a long trailing clause that could have been split for scannability, but there is no filler.

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 not be described, and annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency. The remaining gap is sibling routing — the description never says which tool to pick when the intent is a permanent removal or a cancellation — but for a 2-parameter mutation this is otherwise complete.

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 100% and both parameters already carry descriptions, including the conditional rule for organizationId (only required for multi-org connections) and the list_posts provenance for postId. The prose adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Archive a post') and immediately defines the effect: leaves the active list, stops being published, restorable from the PostRite app. An agent can distinguish archiving from a hard delete. It falls short of 5 because it never names the closest sibling (cancel_post) or clarifies that this is different from permanently removing a post.

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 only implied by the effect statement — an agent can infer 'use this to take a post out of circulation.' There is no explicit when-to-use vs. cancel_post, update_post, or rescheduling, and no statement of what state the post must be in (draft, scheduled, published) for archiving to make sense.

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