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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: the template can no longer be used to create agreements, while existing agreements are unaffected — exactly the impact scoping an agent needs before destructive action.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action and its consequences are front-loaded in a single tight paragraph. Every clause earns its place by qualifying the blast radius.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with annotations carrying the safety hints and no output schema, the description supplies the essential effect scope (creation blocked, existing agreements untouched). It could note whether archiving is reversible, but nothing critical 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 parameter (a UUID id) and the schema itself names and describes it, so the description need not elaborate. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but there is little to add given the single, name-obvious identifier.

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 specific resource (custom template), making it distinguishable from archive-attachment and archive-template by the resource noun. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling archive-template, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 implied by the resource scoping (custom templates only), but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over archive-template, nor any prerequisites or warnings about the operation being irreversible. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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