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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: history is retained, the change is reversible only via crm_restore_contact, and there is a $0.001 per-call cost with no charge on failure. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens to already-archived contacts or whether the contact stays readable via crm_get_contact.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by reversibility and pricing. 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: visibility effect, data retention, reversibility path, and cost. Nothing needed 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 description coverage is 0% and there is one parameter (contact_id) that is self-explanatory by name, so the description is not required to rescue undocumented semantics. It adds nothing about the parameter itself, which is acceptable but not additive, warranting the baseline 3.

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 (archive/hide) and resource (contact), plus the observable effect: removed from searches and lists. It also names crm_update_contact and crm_restore_contact, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its nearest siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: crm_update_contact cannot un-archive, crm_restore_contact does. That is a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use/named-alternative statement rather than implied usage.

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