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

It adds substantial context beyond the annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=false): the required `content:write` scope, the fact that the first call is a no-op validation pass that rejects unknown fields by name, and the human-confirmation gate. What it leaves unstated is the consequence of archiving itself — whether it is reversible, what happens to a published event, or what a repeated archive does despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and permission requirement before the procedural detail. Every sentence carries distinct information: capability, auth, and the two-call contract.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent the first call returns a summary and a confirm_token, and it defines the full call sequence and permission requirement. It is nearly complete for a destructive two-phase tool, missing only the effect and reversibility of the archive operation.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates by explaining the semantics of confirm_token as a second-call-only argument that must be paired with the identical first-call arguments. The `id` parameter is never described in either place, leaving one gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Archive a live event"), which is far clearer than the bare title. It does not, however, distinguish archiving from neighboring lifecycle operations such as unpublish_live_event, delete_live_event, or cancel_live_event, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

It gives a clear operational protocol: call once to validate and obtain a summary plus confirm_token, show the summary to the person, then call again with the token only after agreement. That is strong when-to-invoke guidance for this tool, but there is no guidance on when to prefer it over the sibling unpublish/delete/cancel operations.

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