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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the template is 'removed from active list' (soft-delete semantics) and is 'restorable in the UI,' which qualifies the alarming destructiveHint and tells the agent the effect is reversible.

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, effect first, reversibility second, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place and nothing an agent must read 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essential facts: what it does, that it is destructive but idempotent, and that the deletion is recoverable. Only secondary details (required permissions, response shape) are absent.

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 reported at 0% for the single required id parameter, so the description is expected to compensate, yet it says nothing about the identifier (format, source, or how to obtain it). The inline UUID schema does the actual documentation work, so the description adds no parameter meaning.

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?

The description states a specific verb (archive) and resource (agreement template), and the qualifier 'agreement' distinguishes it from the sibling archive-custom-template. However, it never explicitly routes the agent between those two near-identical siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to archive versus when to use archive-custom-template, create-template, or update-template, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The description only states the effect of the call, leaving all usage context to inference.

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