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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: reversibility, that history and quota accounting stay intact, that the archive never expires, and the 'not_found' failure condition. That is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a state change.

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 tight sentences with the action and its semantics front-loaded and the error case last where it belongs. Denseness is an asset here rather than padding, though the parenthetical gloss and the trailing failure clause could be trimmed slightly.

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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema already describing returns, the description covers scope, reversibility, side effects and the failure mode. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 reported at 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: 'archived=false restores' pins the boolean's polarity, which is the one way to misuse this tool. The vacancy_id parameter itself gets no added meaning beyond the title.

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 ('archive a tracked vacancy... or restore it') plus a lay gloss ('hide it from the user's main list'), which lets an agent separate it from the many sibling archive_/delete_ tools. The reversible/reversible-pair scope is explicit.

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?

Frames the tool as 'the remove it from my list action', which gives clear context for when to reach for it. It never explicitly contrasts with the close-by delete_vacancy sibling, so an agent must infer that permanent removal is elsewhere.

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