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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: operations apply instantly, consume no quota, the archive persists until the user deletes, and the call returns 'not_found' when the match belongs to another user (an ownership/auth condition). These side-effect and error behaviors are exactly what the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint flags cannot convey.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct load: action + restore semantics, then behavioral guarantees, then the read path and error case. Front-loaded with the primary operation and free of 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?

For a single-parameter reversible mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: both directions, reversibility, quota impact, the companion read tool, and the ownership error. No material gap remains.

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?

The description compensates for the reported 0% schema coverage by stating the effect of archived=false versus the default archiving behavior, tying the boolean to a concrete outcome. The nested schema happens to describe the same two fields, so the description adds emphasis rather than new syntax or edge cases.

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 reversible action on a named resource ('Put a saved radar match away in the radar archive, or restore it to the saved pile') and covers both directions of the operation. An agent can distinguish this from delete_radar_match, skip_radar_match and undo_radar_match because the description explicitly frames it as reversible, non-destructive archiving.

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?

Gives clear usage context: archive by default, pass archived=false to restore, and read the archive back with get_radar_matches(status="archived"), naming that tool explicitly. It stops short of an explicit exclusion ('to permanently remove, use delete_radar_match'), so the boundary with the delete sibling is only implied by 'reversible'.

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