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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by revealing that archiving is implemented by 'setting it inactive,' implying a soft-delete behavior. This clarifies that the action is reversible at some level, which complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource ('Archive a funnel') and then explains the mechanism. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 well-documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the essential specifics. It could mention reversibility or permission requirements, but the annotations and schema already provide adequate context.

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?

The input schema already provides a complete description of the sole parameter ('Chasync funnel ID to archive') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action on a specific resource: 'Archive a funnel' and adds the mechanism 'by setting it inactive,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_email_template and archive_form. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage by naming the resource ('funnel') but does not explicitly contrast against alternatives or state conditions like 'use this when you want to deactivate a funnel rather than delete it.' Since the purpose is clear from the name and resource, there is minimal but adequate guidance.

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