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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent already knows the safety profile. The description adds valuable nuance beyond that: nothing mutates at this step (only at confirm_change) and the semantic effect is disclosed (future audits stop measuring; past results retained). It does not describe auth/role requirements or the preview's return shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the conditional workflow constraint follows, so nothing is buried.

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 should ideally hint at what the preview returns; it does not, which is a minor gap. Otherwise it fully conveys purpose, effect, and the confirm_change dependency needed to call the tool 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% and both required params are documented in the schema, including their source tools (list_projects, read_prompt_portfolio). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so it sits at 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 and resource ('Preview archiving tracked prompts') and immediately clarifies the scope of effect ('future audits stop measuring them; past results stay'). It also distinguishes itself from the eventual mutation by naming confirm_change, so an agent can tell it apart from the confirm step without opening a 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?

Clearly establishes the workflow condition: this is a preview whose effect only lands after the user agrees and confirm_change is called. That routes the agent to the correct follow-up tool. It lacks an explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion, but the two-phase framing is unambiguous.

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