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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: false. The description adds valuable context: it clarifies the soft-delete nature, that original rows are preserved for versioning, and mentions cost ($0.05) and API key requirement. This goes beyond the annotations and sets accurate expectations for mutation without permanent deletion.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and effect, then adds cost/auth notes. No wasted words; every element adds value.

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 mutation tool with sparse annotations and a single undocumented parameter, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, idempotency behavior, error conditions, or whether the asset must exist. While the output schema exists, the description still lacks critical operational context beyond the basic action.

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 0% and the description does not mention asset_id at all. There is no hint about what asset_id refers to, its format, or how to obtain it. The agent is left completely without guidance on the single required parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('soft-delete'), the resource ('asset'), and the specific effect ('sets archived_at'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_event' (likely a hard delete) and 'archive_inventory_item' (different resource type). The verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used instead of delete_event or when dealing with assets vs inventory items. No context about prerequisites or conditions is given.

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