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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true with no explanation of what is actually destroyed; the description fills exactly that gap by clarifying that only active-stack membership is removed while history survives, which materially changes how an agent should treat this call. It also covers both directions (archive/unarchive), aligning with idempotentHint. It omits whether the change is reversible/visible elsewhere, but adds genuine value on top of the annotations.

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?

One sentence, operation first, effect second, zero filler. The colon structure front-loads the action and immediately qualifies its consequence.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core effect well, but leaves the identifier undocumented and does not state what the caller gets back or whether the supplement reappears in the stack on unarchive. Adequate, not 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 only 50%: supplementId has no description anywhere, and the description never explains how to trigger unarchive beyond the parenthetical '(or unarchive)'. The parenthetical does gesture at the boolean's meaning, but it does not say that passing archived=false restores the supplement, so compensation for the coverage gap is only partial.

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 pair (archive/unarchive) and resource (supplement), and the trailing clause defines the effect precisely: removed from the active stack, history retained. It implicitly separates itself from deletion-style siblings, though it does not name a specific sibling tool.

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?

The phrase 'without deleting history' implies 'use this instead of a destructive delete', but no sibling is named and the boundary with stackwell_pause_supplement (a close alternative for temporarily removing a supplement) is never addressed. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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