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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: irreversibility (no un-archive in the dashboard) and the two-step confirmation protocol where the first call returns a summary plus confirmToken and the second call proceeds. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 earning its place: effect first, then the safer alternative, then the destructive confirmation mechanics. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what the first call returns (a summary and confirmToken), covers reversibility, and names the alternative tool. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 67% and confirmToken is already documented in the schema, but the description adds the flow semantics the schema lacks: the token comes from a prior call with the same arguments and is omitted on the first call. productId remains undocumented in both places, which keeps this below a 5.

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 (archives), the resource (the product), and the observable effect (disappears from the catalogue and from articles). It also names the sibling hide_product as the softer alternative, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 an explicit routing rule: prefer hide_product when unsure, which covers the main ambiguity against the sibling tool. It stops short of stating hard when-not conditions (e.g. products referenced by published articles), so it is strong context rather than a complete decision rule.

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