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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the operation is reversible, results are preserved, the archive never expires, and it returns 'not_found' for a missing or non-owned interview. It stops short of describing permissions or any side effects on related data.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the disambiguating intent and behavioral guarantees. No filler or repetition of the title.

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-value detail is not needed, and the one notable return case ('not_found') is called out anyway. Combined with annotations covering safety/idempotency, the definition gives an agent everything needed to invoke a reversible two-state archive correctly.

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 reported as 0% at the wrapper level, so the description must carry the semantics, and it does: 'archived=false restores' pins down the boolean's two states, and interview_id ownership rules are explained via the 'not_found' clause. It adds meaning beyond a bare field list.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Archive a mock interview ... or restore it') and clarifies the user-facing intent ('the remove it from my list action'). It implicitly contrasts with delete_interview by stressing reversibility and retained results, but never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 rather than stated: the phrase 'this is the remove it from my list action' tells the agent the intent, and 'reversible, the results are kept' hints at when it is preferred over deletion. However, no alternative tool (e.g., delete_interview) is named and no explicit when-not condition is given.

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