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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond them: what destruction actually means (cannot be used to create agreements) and the blast radius (existing agreements unaffected). It still omits reversibility/restore and permission requirements.

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 the action front-loaded and the consequence immediately after; no filler. Slightly terse on the operational side but nothing wasted.

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, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect on the template and on existing agreements but omits reversibility, required permissions, and error/not-found behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

One parameter with 0% reported schema coverage, and the description adds nothing about the id (which UUID, where obtained). The parameter is largely self-evident from the nested schema's own format/pattern/description, so a baseline 3 is fair.

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 a specific resource (custom template), which is distinguishable from the sibling archive-template by the 'custom' qualifier. It does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast the two, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains the consequence of archiving but never states when to choose this tool over archive-template, update-custom-template, or deletion-style alternatives. The only guidance is implied by the effect statement.

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