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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the template is only removed from the active list and is restorable (in the UI). This tells the agent it is a soft-delete rather than permanent data loss. It still omits auth/permission requirements and whether already-issued agreements are affected.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the effect and reversibility. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description adequately covers the outcome (removed from active list, restorable in UI) for a single-parameter mutation. Missing only edge behavior such as idempotency when archiving an already-archived template and whether the restore path exists outside the UI.

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?

The description adds nothing about the single 'id' parameter. Reported top-level schema coverage is 0%, but the nested id field is self-documenting ('The UUID of the template to archive'), so the omission is not costly. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Archive an agreement template.' An agent can identify the operation, though the description never distinguishes it from the close sibling 'archive-custom-template', which is the main ambiguity in this toolset.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as archive-custom-template or the archive vs. delete distinction. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and sibling list.

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