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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the important side effects: the draft is hidden, versions are preserved, and deliveries keep resolving. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the core behavioral invariant is clearly stated.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The main action and immediate consequence are front-loaded, and the version-preservation guarantee follows naturally.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the behavior an agent needs to understand before calling it. It leaves out the response shape and whether archiving is reversible, but those are minor given how clearly the core semantics are explained.

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 schema describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It adds no formatting or contextual guidance beyond what the schema already provides, which fits the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 the precise operation ('Archive a template') and the key outcome ('preserves its versions'). It also distinguishes itself from related template tools by explaining it hides the draft and keeps history, so an agent can tell it apart from publish, update, or versions.

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?

Provides a clear scenario for archiving—retiring a template while existing deliveries still need version resolution—but does not explicitly name alternatives such as template_publish, template_update, or deletion, nor state when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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