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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description states 'Nothing changes until the user agrees and you call confirm_change,' which implies the tool itself is non-destructive and read-only. This directly contradicts the annotations, so per the scoring rules it is scored 1.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, followed by the crucial workflow constraint. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and contradictory annotations, the description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics and does not clarify what the preview returns (e.g., a token needed by confirm_change) or how the two calls relate beyond the user-agreement condition.

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 the description does not explain the meaning, format, or role of project_id or prompt_ids. It only alludes to 'tracked prompts' without mapping to the parameters. The schema provides types and formats but no semantic descriptions, so the description fails to compensate.

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. It also clarifies the scope (future audits stop measuring them; past results stay) and distinguishes this tool from confirm_change, which actually applies the change. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from its sibling.

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 names the follow-up tool (confirm_change) and the precondition for actually applying changes (user agrees). This routes the agent through the intended two-step workflow without ambiguity. No exclusions are stated, but the alternative for committing the change is clearly identified.

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