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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by clarifying that the operation is a soft delete that preserves historical email data. This nuance is not present in the annotations and helps the agent understand the exact behavioral effect beyond simple mutation.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the key nuance in a compact way, earning its place without redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the soft-delete behavior. It does not mention permissions or what happens to the archived template, but these are likely covered by the output schema and the tool's simplicity. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, meaning the schema already fully documents the _id parameter as 'Chasync email template ID to archive.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action (archive) and the resource (email template), and it adds the crucial qualifier 'without permanently deleting historical email data' to distinguish it from a hard delete. It also differentiates from sibling tools like archive_form and archive_funnel by targeting email templates specifically.

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 description implies the tool is for removing a template from active use while preserving history, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over save_email_template or when not to use it. It also does not mention any prerequisites or fallback scenarios. The usage context is only implied through the phrasing about not permanently deleting.

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