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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the attachment is removed from the active list rather than destroyed. It also reveals an operational quirk — restoration happens in the UI, not via this API — which an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 compact sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded and the consequence follows immediately.

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 one-parameter mutation tool whose annotations already cover safety, idempotency, and openness, the description adds the key consequence and reversibility story. It omits error behavior (e.g., already-archived or missing attachment) and any permission requirement, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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?

Only one nested parameter (pathParams.id), and the schema's own field description already states it is the UUID of the attachment to archive. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what the schema supplies, so it neither compensates for nor detracts from the nominal 0% coverage metric.

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 (archive) and resource (file attachment), so an agent immediately knows the operation and target. It does not name or contrast itself with siblings such as list-attachments or upload-attachment, but the resource noun makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: “Removed from active list; restorable in the UI” signals this is a soft-delete rather than permanent removal, which hints at when it is preferred over a hard delete. There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool guidance.

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